Is Buddhism holy?

Jeffrey

I don't mean this in a Christian way. I mean that it is sacred.

I think it is but the sentiment is suffering. We think 'how dare anyone criticize or disturb my sacred meditation or disagree/criticize or one upmanship'

@Federica, can you change this to advanced ideas... The whole point of this is to not compare to Christianity. Repeating... the whole point is to not compare to Christianity.

Dakini

I know students of Buddhism who have said their lamas referred to the Dharma as "the holy Dharma". Nothing wrong with that, sounds appropriate.

federica

@Federica, can you change this to advanced ideas... The whole point of this is to not compare to Christianity.

:thumbsup:

taiyaki

Its holy if you make it holy.
its sacred it you make it sacred.

to some it is what it is.

sometimes its shit.

sometimes its the water when one is thirsty.

to others its irrelevant.

it all depends on circumstance. on the day. on the hour. on the minute. on the second.

=]

federica

Yes, it is.

sa·cred (skrd)
adj.
1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

[Middle English, past participle of sacren, to consecrate, from Old French sacrer, from Latin sacrre, from sacer, sacr-, sacred; see sak- in Indo-European roots.]

Tosh

Fed has given the conventional truth, the conventional definition; and the ultimate truth is that it's empty of inherent meaning; Taiyaki explained that with his examples.

vinlyn

Buddhism is not shit.

Tosh

Buddhism is not shit.

It is to some people, Vinlyn, but Buddhism isn't inherently shitty, because it's not inherently anything.

Taiyaki's post points this out; we create the 'object' in our own minds. This is Heart Sutra stuff.

vinlyn

Buddhism is not shit.

It is to some people, Vinlyn, but Buddhism isn't inherently shitty, because it's not inherently anything.

Taiyaki's post points this out; we create the 'object' in our own minds. This is Heart Sutra stuff.

If I were to say that Taiyaki's ideas are shit, I'm sure Federica would say I was being inflammatory, and I would completely understand her. I think we ought to give Buddhism at least as much courtesy as we would give any person on this forum.

Tosh

If I were to say that Taiyaki's ideas are shit, I'm sure Federica would say I was being inflammatory, and I would completely understand her. I think we ought to give Buddhism at least as much courtesy as we would give any person on this forum.

I agree, Vinlyn, but I don't think Taiyaki was being rude, he was just pointing out how the same phenomena (in this case Buddhism) is perceived differently by different conceptual minds (or even the same mind at different times).

If Buddhism were something that was truly inherently existent on its own side, then it would kinda project this 'trueness' out, and we would all see the same thing. But since Buddhism doesn't inherently exist on it's own side; we create the concept of it, therefore some folk could conceive it to be 'shit'. And others can conceive it to be 'sacred' or 'holy'.

Western philosophers have also concluded this, people like Immanuel Kant.

And understanding this has real value too. For example that 'horrible boss' we have isn't inherently existent, it's what we've created that boss to be in our own minds. Realising it's a creation of our own minds, we can do something about it.

Oh, and another great example is Taiyaki's post. I created (conceptualised) that post as being 'good' and you created that post as being 'rude'.

vinlyn

I remember once we had a very young English teacher in our middle school who had decided to teach a novel (meaning that all students were required to read that novel) that included a graphic telling of the story of a teenager being raped on a pool table. The principal tried having logical discussions with that teacher about the wisdom of forcing teens to read about a teen undergoing rape on a pool table, but he persisted. So, even though I was the assistant principal, I took over and I told that teacher the following: "Require the reading of that novel and get fired. Period. Whatever you see as the qualities of that novel -- whether it be plot, setting, characterization, etc. -- must be present in other contemporary novels that would not be offensive to reasonable parents and children."

A wise and learned person could find more appropriate language to convey Taiyaki's concept without being offensive.

Jeffrey

@vinylyn, if he said he was taking a shit on the dharma I would understand the offense. But we both know taiyaki and I sincerely doubt there was ill intention.

As an aside there was a zen master I think Banko who said when asked what buddhism was he said "buddhism is shit on a stick". I think this is an example of sectarian divisions. You are from Thailand where such a statement would be an extreme foul and unforgiveable, but in zen such comments make sense or at least they are not fouls.

taiyaki

Thats true vinlyn. But i am not wise and learned.

So i do what i can do.

Let the cards fall where hy may.

Gui

Everything is sacred. And everything is not sacred.

RichardH

I think it is but the sentiment is suffering. We think 'how dare anyone criticize or disturb my sacred meditation or disagree/criticize or one upmanship'

The Holiness (deep value) of Buddha Dharma is also emptiness/form. Being emptiness/form doesn't negate the Holiness.. any more than it negates any relative value.. but it means the Holiness isn't a trap.

ozen

Buddhism doesn't inherently exist on it's own side; we create the concept of it,

What you and Taiyaki are saying is that Buddhism is a contrivance, a mere concept that we have created with no inherent value. Is that right?

Tosh

Buddhism doesn't inherently exist on it's own side; we create the concept of it,

What you and Taiyaki are saying is that Buddhism is a contrivance, a mere concept that we have created with no inherent value. Is that right?

It's not what I say, it's the doctrine of Emptiness; it's how all things exist. It's tough to get your mind around it at first, but it really isn't that tough to understand; it just takes a bit of effort.

It is profound, but it's not like magical or anything; it's perfectly logical and rational.

I recommend a good long commentary on the Heart Sutra if you'd like to understand more.

Sile

Interestingly, the Proto-Indo-European *saq- "bind, restrict, enclose, protect," is considered by some linguists to be the root of both the word sacred and secret.

ozen

Buddhism doesn't inherently exist on it's own side; we create the concept of it,

What you and Taiyaki are saying is that Buddhism is a contrivance, a mere concept that we have created with no inherent value. Is that right?

It's not what I say, it's the doctrine of Emptiness; it's how all things exist.

You are saying that Buddhism has no ultimate value or meaning?

zenff

Personally I think Buddhism is not sacred or holy. It is a raft, a tool, a finger pointing at the moon.
Use it; don’t pray to it.

Even devotion; for those who are into it; is just a means.
When it works for people to worship the holy tooth of an Arahant; that’s perfectly okay. The tooth is just a tooth though.
Just like the statue of the Buddha is only a piece of wood; the heart of the person bowing to it is what matters.

Tosh

You are saying that Buddhism has no ultimate value or meaning?

Yes and no. You have to understand the doctrine of the Two Truths; conventional truth and ultimate truth. Conventionally, yes, Buddhism has value and meaning, but ultimately Buddhism has no value or meaning; it's empty of inherent existence.

Buddhists can use both truths in their lives. It may sound weird, but it is logical, but there's probably a good few lessons in the few lines I've typed. Serious, get a long commentary on the Heart Sutra and work your way slowly through it. It'll explain it all better than I can.

taiyaki

@ozen

Buddhism has great meaning.

But its medicine. For those who are sick. More importantly for those who realize they are sick.

Beyond that what use is Buddhism?

Either you're suffering or you're not.

To my mother Buddhism is idol worship. Shes a christian. Though Buddhism can help her, to her its all nonsense.

To my friends its another religion with the fat guy and smiles. They like the ideas buy don't partake.

To my fellow practioners it is life candy and life itself. Its the path that leads us towards what we all want which is peace or to put bluntly no more fucking suffering!

So buddhism is empty of inherent existence. Thus buddhism is what we make it. Conceptually and with our lives. It has real value to those who have the karma to see the value and even so apply it. To others its irrelevant though i would disagree with them. But who am i? Everyone has their own path and karmic way.

So what does this have to do with anything?

Keep an open mind and more importantly an open heart. We are fortunate enough to see buddhism as holy.

Others see other things as holy.

Whatever works for them.

PrairieGhost

ozen

You are saying that Buddhism has no ultimate value or meaning?

The idea that things have no ultimate value or meaning is itself just skillful means.

Not all teachers even teach this, for instance the Buddha didn't, it's a more Mahayana teaching. I don't mean that to criticise it, I think it's been a very useful teaching in the right places at the right times. In one sense it's true and in another sense it's the opposite of true.

It's meant to uproot one's tendency to say 'God' is the ultimate value and meaning, while not really knowing what 'God' means to you at all. Having certainty is a way of delaying the realisation of one's confusion.

But when you hear a teaching and think 'that sounds ridiculous', then you're basically correct, in that how you've interpreted it does make it seem ridiculous. Unless it is ridiculous. :-/

ozen

You are saying that Buddhism has no ultimate value or meaning?

Yes and no. You have to understand the doctrine of the Two Truths; conventional truth and ultimate truth. Conventionally, yes, Buddhism has value and meaning, but ultimately Buddhism has no value or meaning; it's empty of inherent existence.

Buddhists can use both truths in their lives. It may sound weird, but it is logical, but there's probably a good few lessons in the few lines I've typed. Serious, get a long commentary on the Heart Sutra and work your way slowly through it. It'll explain it all better than I can.

What is there to understand? If you believe that Buddhism ultimately has no value or meaning then that's what you believe. What else is there to understand.

Tosh

@ozen, you seem to be arguing a point I'm not making. I'm not saying that Buddhism has no value, I'm saying what the Buddhist doctrine of Emptiness is, and this includes the mode dharma exists.

And there is plenty to understand.

ozen

I'm not arguing at all.

So you do think Buddhism has value and meaning?

taiyaki

@ozen

something can only have value because we give it value.

thus fundamentally everything lacks intrinsic value.

for example i value pizza a lot. but some other people might not value pizza as much as i do. pizza is what it is. whatever we add to pizza as it is, is the value we give to it.

from this we can start to open the hand of thought. we give meaning to things and we start to loosen this grip we have on our beliefs. and yes you're right people can have a belief in the emptiness of things. but even that must be tossed out.

the whole point is to end belief and start to realize truth directly as it is.

emptiness is taught to allow freedom from views, so that one can have a break through to this non conceptual reality prior to what we "make" or "deem" as reality based on our "beliefs".

The whole point is to loosen the closed fist we have on ideas.

Jeffrey

@taiyaki, but isn't there an inherent sensitivity to your dependently originated life? For example your sensitivity would help you tell the difference from a pizza and a wrench. It is all conditioned and projected but it would be impossible for you to 'get it wrong' and attempt to eat the wrench or use the pizza as a tool.

So there is a conditioned superstructure of all civilization, all laws of physics, and all the biology of the human brain.

But then there is a sensitive awareness. Maybe as a baby we try to put things in our mouth and directly learn things. At the same time there would be no possibility to have a society that used wrenches as edible food.

taiyaki

@Jeffrey

I agree there is sensitivity. What's left when we open the hand of thought is the suchness of reality. All the vivid arisings of awareness. Coming and going.

Thats where Shentong makes sense to me. It is more experiential to say that awareness is open, spacious, sensitive, etc.

But its very easy to reify awareness into a thing. Thus emptiness is taught to counter that last clinging.

So everything in balance.

Emptiness should always be understood in relationship to awareness. The unborn is apparent through the multifold of manifestations as awareness. We're not talking about a void, but rather in very simple language and obviousness. Everything arises and everything falls. If nothing is held onto because there is no one holding on, then the unborn is realized. But still the nature of the unborn is to continually manifest. But such appearances are like bubbles. They are real, but instantly they are gone. gone. gone.

It's all about balance.

ozen

@ozen

something can only have value because we give it value.

thus fundamentally everything lacks intrinsic value.

for example i value pizza a lot. but some other people might not value pizza as much as i do. pizza is what it is. whatever we add to pizza as it is, is the value we give to it.

from this we can start to open the hand of thought. we give meaning to things and we start to loosen this grip we have on our beliefs. and yes you're right people can have a belief in the emptiness of things. but even that must be tossed out.

the whole point is to end belief and start to realize truth directly as it is.

emptiness is taught to allow freedom from views, so that one can have a break through to this non conceptual reality prior to what we "make" or "deem" as reality based on our "beliefs".

The whole point is to loosen the closed fist we have on ideas.

So by believing that Buddhism has no value or meaning you are loosening your grip on it. How's that working out?

vinlyn

@ozen

something can only have value because we give it value.

thus fundamentally everything lacks intrinsic value.

for example i value pizza a lot. but some other people might not value pizza as much as i do. pizza is what it is. whatever we add to pizza as it is, is the value we give to it.

from this we can start to open the hand of thought. we give meaning to things and we start to loosen this grip we have on our beliefs. and yes you're right people can have a belief in the emptiness of things. but even that must be tossed out.

the whole point is to end belief and start to realize truth directly as it is.

emptiness is taught to allow freedom from views, so that one can have a break through to this non conceptual reality prior to what we "make" or "deem" as reality based on our "beliefs".

The whole point is to loosen the closed fist we have on ideas.

I have this feeling that you think this is such a "deep" concept, and I don't think it is at all. I think it's relatively plain to the average person -- at least adults -- that the value of something is usually the value we place on it.

We look at teenagers who think the world rises and sets on Justin Bieber (who's a pretty talented kid), but we know that stars come and go, rise and fall. Kids don't necessarily see things like that, but I think most adults do.

I know that items of property I own -- photos, CDs, DVDs -- that I value greatly will probably end up at the landfill when I die.

So what?

taiyaki

@ozen

something can only have value because we give it value.

thus fundamentally everything lacks intrinsic value.

for example i value pizza a lot. but some other people might not value pizza as much as i do. pizza is what it is. whatever we add to pizza as it is, is the value we give to it.

from this we can start to open the hand of thought. we give meaning to things and we start to loosen this grip we have on our beliefs. and yes you're right people can have a belief in the emptiness of things. but even that must be tossed out.

the whole point is to end belief and start to realize truth directly as it is.

emptiness is taught to allow freedom from views, so that one can have a break through to this non conceptual reality prior to what we "make" or "deem" as reality based on our "beliefs".

The whole point is to loosen the closed fist we have on ideas.

So by believing that Buddhism has no value or meaning you are loosening your grip on it. How's that working out?

Buddhism has value only because it lacks intrinsic value.

Imho one eventually has to move beyond buddhism.

Suffering is universal. Freedom from suffering is universal. The path is universal.

Buddhism is just a teaching which helps towards realizing and letting go.

If you disagree thats fine. These are just my opinions.

taiyaki

@ozen

something can only have value because we give it value.

thus fundamentally everything lacks intrinsic value.

for example i value pizza a lot. but some other people might not value pizza as much as i do. pizza is what it is. whatever we add to pizza as it is, is the value we give to it.

from this we can start to open the hand of thought. we give meaning to things and we start to loosen this grip we have on our beliefs. and yes you're right people can have a belief in the emptiness of things. but even that must be tossed out.

the whole point is to end belief and start to realize truth directly as it is.

emptiness is taught to allow freedom from views, so that one can have a break through to this non conceptual reality prior to what we "make" or "deem" as reality based on our "beliefs".

The whole point is to loosen the closed fist we have on ideas.

I have this feeling that you think this is such a "deep" concept, and I don't think it is at all. I think it's relatively plain to the average person -- at least adults -- that the value of something is usually the value we place on it.

We look at teenagers who think the world rises and sets on Justin Bieber (who's a pretty talented kid), but we know that stars come and go, rise and fall. Kids don't necessarily see things like that, but I think most adults do.

I know that items of property I own -- photos, CDs, DVDs -- that I value greatly will probably end up at the landfill when I die.

So what?

It isn't a deep concept. Its stupid simple. I agree with you.

Just like suffering is simple. No one can deny suffering. The cause is clinging. So let go.

The whole point of emptiness teachings is to let go of ones clinging to mental concepts as objective, inherently existing, permanent, etc.

An opinion is just an opinion. Value is what we deem as value.

We all get this. Its common sense.

But its a completely different story when it comes to our lives. How much can we let go of? How much can we loosen our hold on our meaning, our values, our "truth"?

Opening up is the whole point. Because it is only then that suffering ceases.

If one doesn't suffering and has no problem letting go because it is obvious and common sense. Then they don't need Buddhism because they are Buddhas.

Since we are not Buddhas. Since we do suffer. We need Buddhism and teachers and practice to help us loosen the grip on "things".

So that we can learn to be completely naked, open, and fresh. Then peace can flourish without the mind and body clenching onto things as objectively existing.

Jeffrey

@taiyaki, I've heard it said that the shentong the vajrayana is the ultimate nature of reality, whereas the rangtong emptiness is the ultimate nature of reality. But my teacher says the emptiness/mahayana is seemless with the vajrayana although they can be categorized using concepts.

I've also heard it said that the shentong is a nice correction for nihilists and the rangtong is a nice correction for eternalists. They are both Buddhism in my opinion.

ozen

@ozen

something can only have value because we give it value.

thus fundamentally everything lacks intrinsic value.

for example i value pizza a lot. but some other people might not value pizza as much as i do. pizza is what it is. whatever we add to pizza as it is, is the value we give to it.

from this we can start to open the hand of thought. we give meaning to things and we start to loosen this grip we have on our beliefs. and yes you're right people can have a belief in the emptiness of things. but even that must be tossed out.

the whole point is to end belief and start to realize truth directly as it is.

emptiness is taught to allow freedom from views, so that one can have a break through to this non conceptual reality prior to what we "make" or "deem" as reality based on our "beliefs".

The whole point is to loosen the closed fist we have on ideas.

So by believing that Buddhism has no value or meaning you are loosening your grip on it. How's that working out?

Buddhism has value only because it lacks intrinsic value.

Imho one eventually has to move beyond buddhism.

Suffering is universal. Freedom from suffering is universal. The path is universal.

Buddhism is just a teaching which helps towards realizing and letting go.

If you disagree thats fine. These are just my opinions.

I have nothing to disagree with. I'm asking if believing that Buddhism has no value or meaning help you in "letting go?"

taiyaki

@taiyaki, I've heard it said that the shentong the vajrayana is the ultimate nature of reality, whereas the rangtong emptiness is the ultimate nature of reality. But my teacher says the emptiness/mahayana is seemless with the vajrayana although they can be categorized using concepts.

I've also heard it said that the shentong is a nice correction for nihilists and the rangtong is a nice correction for eternalists. They are both Buddhism in my opinion.

Yes antidotes for different problems.

Imho dzogchen does a good job bring the conclusion of both schools of thought.

The goal for vajrayana is mahamudra which is the same as dzogchen.

The essence is empty, pure. Yet its function or nature is infinite potentiality to express itself. This is done through energy.

The symbolic metaphor is of a mirror and its appearances. The mirror reflects anything while remaining pure. There is no mirror without appearances yet they are distinct. The manifestation is always what is.

Anyways this is just a causal sharing.

taiyaki

@ozen

its not a belief, which brings about the letting go.

its seeing that Buddhism is a word. Buddhism is sounds coming out of the mouth. Buddhism is a religion or system which gives a path towards letting go.

The dharma exists with or without buddhism. The dharma is the truth of reality.

Buddhism presents dharma. The dharma is eternal. Buddhism is not.

I have not given up Buddhism or thrown away what works. It works and then one day Buddhism will also self liberate and no longer will be required.

Until then I have an open mind to all religions and even different schools of Buddhism.

Because they all point to the same thing which is freedom, peace, happiness. Buddhism in my opinion is the only path that leads unreservedly to freedom. The other paths I have no idea about.

But maybe you're right. That is a belief based on my experience. Letting go is a deep process and eventually all our practices, buddhism, beliefs must be cast aside. Until then we take baby steps.

vinlyn

...

But its a completely different story when it comes to our lives. How much can we let go of? How much can we loosen our hold on our meaning, our values, our "truth"?

Opening up is the whole point. Because it is only then that suffering ceases.

If one doesn't suffering and has no problem letting go because it is obvious and common sense. Then they don't need Buddhism because they are Buddhas.

Since we are not Buddhas. Since we do suffer. We need Buddhism and teachers and practice to help us loosen the grip on "things".

So that we can learn to be completely naked, open, and fresh. Then peace can flourish without the mind and body clenching onto things as objectively existing.

This is where I think -- at least for most people -- you're wrong. I don't think it's about "how much can we let go of". I think it's about how much do we want to let go of.

I may be wrong, but I think I remember seeing a picture of you that you posted with a beer in front of you. Why don't you let go of that and follow the Precepts? Because you can't let go? My guess is because you don't want to let go of that.

taiyaki

@vinyln

I don't really understand the difference between how much we can let go of and how much do we want to let go of.

What is posited underneath that is the assumption that there is someone letting go and even something to let go of.

That is exactly the assumption that must be penetrated with wisdom and clear seeing.

What we let go of is the holds in the mind and body. We don't have to renounce the whole world. But some may need that to allow the mind and body to let go. But it isn't necessary.

ozen

@ozen

its not a belief, which brings about the letting go.

its seeing that Buddhism is a word. Buddhism is sounds coming out of the mouth. Buddhism is a religion or system which gives a path towards letting go.

The dharma exists with or without buddhism. The dharma is the truth of reality.

Buddhism presents dharma. The dharma is eternal. Buddhism is not.

I have not given up Buddhism or thrown away what works. It works and then one day Buddhism will also self liberate and no longer will be required.

Until then I have an open mind to all religions and even different schools of Buddhism.

Because they all point to the same thing which is freedom, peace, happiness. Buddhism in my opinion is the only path that leads unreservedly to freedom. The other paths I have no idea about.

But maybe you're right. That is a belief based on my experience. Letting go is a deep process and eventually all our practices, buddhism, beliefs must be cast aside. Until then we take baby steps.

So you believe that Dharma ultimately has meaning, but not Buddhism?

federica

OK:
Can we move this along now?

May i remind participants that the original question is this:

Is Buddhism holy?
Jeffrey
I don't mean this in a Christian way. I mean that it is sacred.

I think it is but the sentiment is suffering. We think 'how dare anyone criticize or disturb my sacred meditation or disagree/criticize or one upmanship'

The whole point of this is to not compare to Christianity.

Please address the topic and cease derailing the discussion by splitting hairs and dissecting semantics.

Thanks.

ozen

Yes, obviously Buddhism is regarded with great respect and reverence by Buddhists, and even many people who don't practice it.

Emptiness does not mean that things have no meaning or value. That's nihilism. Emptiness simply suggests the apparent transitory nature of things, which might make us care more, not less.

federica

'Emptiness' doesn't figure in the original question.
Don't circumvent the direction.

ozen

'Emptiness' doesn't figure in the original question.
Don't circumvent the direction.

That is the current direction, which I believe that you know want to move away from. I'm trying to help you do that.

vinlyn

I don't really understand the difference between how much we can let go of and how much do we want to let go of.

I could give you a lot of examples, but let me settle on two:

1. I know people who cannot give up smoking. They struggle constantly to do so, but fail every time. They try various techniques...all of which don't work for them. They do not have the ability to quit...at least at this point in their life.

I also know people that stopped smoking cold turkey, first time they tried. For them the ability to stop or not was not based on an addiction or obsession. It was merely a choice.

2. Same scenario with alcohol. But specifically my father -- not sure he was an alcoholic because for most of his life he chose to drink heavily. Then we day he simply chose to stop.

But I also know alcoholics who cannot stop drinking. It's no longer a choice with them.

Now, does this relate to what Federica wants to get back to -- whether Buddhism is sacred? Yes, I think so, because when you choose to follow Buddhism as a religion, you are consciously deciding what is sacred to you...as opposed to someone who simply grows up in a Buddhist culture, hasn't really thought about, and simply goes through the motions. Again, the issue is making choices.

Jeffrey

@ozen, it's not a big deal you can just start your own thread. If you talked about whether emptiness was holy or not then you would be on topic. But the connection between nihilism and caring is not related to whether buddhism is sacred or not?? Or at least could you clarify?

Tosh

'Emptiness' doesn't figure in the original question.
Don't circumvent the direction.

Ah, but you see, the Four Seals are Buddhist tenants; and 'all phenomena is empty' is one of 'em. The Four Seals is what makes something 'Buddhist', so if Buddhism is a phenomena, it must be empty of inherent existence. Therefore it cannot be inherently 'Holy'; it is whatever meaning we apply to it.

@Ozen, I don't think anyone said that Emptiness does not mean that things have no meaning or value. Emptiness means it's empty of inherent existence on it's own side. On our side, it will have whatever meaning or value we place on it. Do you understand the phrase 'Empty of inherent existence'? It means without a conceptual mind, Buddhism does not exist on it's own side; it needs a MIND to impute a meaning on the phenomena 'Buddhism'. So Buddhism will exist in many different ways - probably as many ways as there are minds to impute a meaning onto it.

Jeffrey

@Tosh, I meant a different discussion than whether holy is empty. Of course holy is empty. It would be like if I asked if Buddhists can eat meat and somebody said yes because meat is empty.

ozen

But the connection between nihilism and caring is not related to whether buddhism is sacred or not??

All I can say that the skepticism indicated by your two question marks is well founded.

ozen

Do you understand the phrase 'Empty of inherent existence'? It means without a conceptual mind, Buddhism does not exist on it's own side; it needs a MIND to impute a meaning on the phenomena 'Buddhism'. So Buddhism will exist in many different ways - probably as many ways as there are minds to impute a meaning onto it.

Emptiness is not about dividing up phenomena into one side or the other. Empty of inherent existence essentially means that all things are, or at least appear to be, impermanent. The rational implications of that observation could be that nothing has a fixed or permanent essence, thus anatman.

Tosh

Ah, right, I get you, @Jeffrey; apologies.

Right, I don't know; what makes something 'Holy'?

Let's have a look at the conventional meaning of the word:



Yes, based on that, I'd say Buddhism is definitely Holy.