Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Does it matter to Dharma Practice if Rebirth is true or false?
You tell me its an axiom
I ask you you why you think that.
You tell me I should be censored?
Wow.
not quite mat.
Rebirth is without a doubt an axiom in Buddhist scriptures, to even argue in the contrary is an absurd display of your ignorance of the topic.
Not to mention that as usual your post was rude, condescending and aggressive.
You have no idea what your talking about and have littered these boards with your nonsensical self-promoting and insulting posts.
You should have been banned a long time ago for being the obvious troll that you are.
That may well be the case, I have never suggested otherwise. All I ask is for you to show me what you are talking about when you tell me, with certainty, I am wrong.
I am not rude or a troll, I simply have a differnt take on Dharma to you:)
That may well be the case, I have never suggested otherwise. All I ask is for you to show me what you are talking about when you tell me, with certainty, I am wrong.
I am not rude or a troll, I simply have a differnt take on Dharma to you:)
Mat
Do you know what an axiom is? Your question makes it seem that you know as little about what an axiom is as you do about Buddhist dharma and history.
You dont have a "take" on the dharma at all.
What you have is a grossly inaccurate preconceived idea of Buddhist history, theory, scripture, and practice that you relentlessly present on this forum.
If you arent a troll and a rude one at that, maybe you should adjust your approach to better portray yourself.
I think I do. To me its a foundational, irredictible fact or law upon which a system is constructed. Maths and logic have lots of them, as I understand it, science doesn't have any?
Dharma has three, these are Anataman, Annica and Dukka. From these the Buddha saw how the structure of Dharma emerges.
So Tanha and Karma, for example, are dependent upon the prior axioms but are not themselves axioms.
So, I dont see anywhere in Buddhsim, or any way, to make Rebirth "an axiom" it seems to me much more like a simple "assumption.":)
>>>You dont have a "take" on the dharma at all.
>>>What you have is a grossly inaccurate preconceived idea of Buddhist history, theory, scripture, and practice that you relentlessly present on this forum.
If you could show me, for example, why I am mistaken in my conclusions here, i will gladly shut up:) Frankly, i would much rather that rebirth was part of Dharma and the suttras all true etc, but I cant see that is the case:)
If your so sure why I am so wrong about the history and theory and accuracy of the scripture I am sure it would take a line or two to show me where I am mistaken:)
I have never really mentioned practice here, except to say that the eightfold path is the same for mystical and scientist Buddhist alike:) Thats the important part of buddhism, all this arguing we do here is philosophising and navel gazing for the main part:)
>>>If you arent a troll and a rude one at that, maybe you should adjust your approach to better portray yourself.
Thats very unfair. In any of my initila posts, as in not my replies, show me where i am rude or whatver?
I have been called all manner of things here, "asshole", "monkey" bla bla . LOL. I mean! To make out Im the instigator of all the forum dukka in my posts is just blinded. You are mistaken there:)
I may be deluded I am neither rude nor antagonistic as a person:)
I think I do. To me its a foundational, irredictible fact or law upon which a system is constructed. Maths and logic have lots of them, as I understand it, science doesn't have any?
Dharma has three, these are Anataman, Annica and Dukka. From these the Buddha saw how the structure of Dharma emerges.
So Tanha and Karma, for example, are dependent upon the prior axioms but are not themselves axioms.
So, I dont see anywhere in Buddhsim, or any way, to make Rebirth "an axiom" it seems to me much more like a simple "assumption.":)
>>>You dont have a "take" on the dharma at all.
>>>What you have is a grossly inaccurate preconceived idea of Buddhist history, theory, scripture, and practice that you relentlessly present on this forum.
If you could show me, for example, why I am mistaken in my conclusions here, i will gladly shut up:) Frankly, i would much rather that rebirth was part of Dharma and the suttras all true etc, but I cant see that is the case:)
If your so sure why I am so wrong about the history and theory and accuracy of the scripture I am sure it would take a line or two to show me where I am mistaken:)
I have never really mentioned practice here, except to say that the eightfold path is the same for mystical and scientist Buddhist alike:) Thats the important part of buddhism, all this arguing we do here is philosophising and navel gazing for the main part:)
>>>If you arent a troll and a rude one at that, maybe you should adjust your approach to better portray yourself.
Thats very unfair. In any of my initila posts, as in not my replies, show me where i am rude or whatver?
I have been called all manner of things here, "asshole", "monkey" bla bla . LOL. I mean! To make out Im the instigator of all the forum dukka in my posts is just blinded. You are mistaken there:)
I may be deluded I am neither rude nor antagonistic as a person:)
Be nice:)
Mat
Many people here have shown you repeatedly where you are mistaken.
I am not going to write anymore drawn out posts to reiterate what has already been said. Its been proven that such efforts have no effect on you.
You should spend more time studying if you want to actually present an interesting and relevant argument that is worthy of a detailed and accurate response.
smilies.
I ask again, show me where in the suttras it says it is something that is axiomatic to Dharma. One place.
I thought you said you didn't believe in the suttas? The suttas are rife with talk of literally being reborn into different realms. The Metta Sutta ends with the words "The pure-hearted one... is not born again into this world." (And no, it isn't a metaphor for the perpetuation of further craving states. The literal translation is "shall not again be born into a womb.")
Yet, if shenpen nangwa or I or anyone else were to bring these facts to your attention you would dismiss them outright by saying you don't believe in the suttas. Do you see how ridiculous it is to even continue this discussion?
Two more things:
1.) It's either "suttas" (Pali) or "sutra" (Sanskrit). Not Suttra.
2.) Please limit your usage of smileys. It's difficult to tell whether you're being facetious or not when every other line of your post ends with a .
I thought you said you didn't believe in the suttas?
No, I do not belive in their accuracy. I believe the doctrine that supports and supported by the Four Noble Truths and The Three Marks is absoluitly certain, i am no more certain of anything.
The majic stuff, like litteral rebirth, and realms, i do not belive in.
>>The suttas are rife with talk of literally being reborn into different realms.
Hmmm... not really , not in the first, last etc... the ones that I assume, maybe wrongly, are the key ones.
Also, there are mentions, which seem to be contamination because tehre is no expliantion as to how Majic fits with Dharma:)
>>The Metta Sutta ends with the words "The pure-hearted one... is not born again into this world." (And no, it isn't a metaphor for the perpetuation of further craving states. The literal translation is "shall not again be born into a womb.")
Yes, I know:) I read that as meaning a renunciation of future rebirth , as in The Mirror of Dharma.
None of us shall be into a womb again.
How is that not compatible with the no rebith view?
>>>Do you see how ridiculous it is to even continue this discussion?
Then don't disuses. Please, just don't comment. Assume I am a troll and dont feed me:) I have no problem with that. Some here are helpful and constructive and I am happy to stick to talking with them:)
I am interested in Dharma not dogma:)
>>>Please limit your usage of smileys. It's difficult to tell whether you're being facetious or not when every other line of your post ends with a
I promise this, i am not being facetious or snidey or sarcastic. I write very matter of factly and I know I come over as bombastic etc, that's my issue not my intention. Nobody is perfect, escpially on the internet:p
If I smile, I'm being freindly in what often appears to be a really unfriendly environment to me:)
Also, there are mentions, which seem to be contamination because tehre is no expliantion as to how Majic fits with Dharma:)
Prove it? You have every right to disbelief (doubt, as you like to say) the metaphysical aspects of Buddhism, but you have no right to go about asserting that that is what the Buddha meant or taught without doing a heck of a lot of explaining. It's not only disrespectful to people who may be new to Buddhism and may get a distorted view of it from what you write, but it's also disrespectful to the cultures that have preserved Buddhism for the last two-thousand years. Stephen Batchelor (author of Buddhism Without Beliefs) at least has the integrity to admit that his agnostic version of Buddhism is probably not representative of what the actual Buddha taught.
If you cant answer them, just leave me alone please:)
You come over like a dogmatic bully to my ideas. That is not the way of the Buddha, surely?
actually its quite the opposite.
If i didnt help prevent you from bullying the posters of this site with your blatantly adharma rhetoric i would be violating my vows.
Your "questions"/assertions are not worthy of a serious response Mat. That is why one wont be given from me.
I have never pressured you with dogmatic bullying although to you it seems that anyone who doesnt think you are as smart as you think you are must be a dogmatic, or, "mystical" Buddhist.
What is dharma but what I say... ahhh rebith and vows against enquiry is it?
Wrong Speach
you have no idea what is or is not wrong speech.
The simple fact is that you consistently propagate what actually is wrong speech in every one of your posts.
you should have been banned a long time ago.
Comments
You tell me its an axiom
I ask you you why you think that.
You tell me I should be censored?
Wow.
not quite mat.
Rebirth is without a doubt an axiom in Buddhist scriptures, to even argue in the contrary is an absurd display of your ignorance of the topic.
Not to mention that as usual your post was rude, condescending and aggressive.
You have no idea what your talking about and have littered these boards with your nonsensical self-promoting and insulting posts.
You should have been banned a long time ago for being the obvious troll that you are.
I ask again, show me where in the suttras it says it is something that is axiomatic to Dharma. One place.
Yet, if shenpen nangwa or I or anyone else were to bring these facts to your attention you would dismiss them outright by saying you don't believe in the suttas. Do you see how ridiculous it is to even continue this discussion?
Two more things:
1.) It's either "suttas" (Pali) or "sutra" (Sanskrit). Not Suttra.
2.) Please limit your usage of smileys. It's difficult to tell whether you're being facetious or not when every other line of your post ends with a
That's just not true. Show me one post of the "many", just one...
Just one:)
Because, simply, you cannot.
If you had the chance, which you must have with yoru certainty, why would you not use it?
You cant answer why, nor can you show my any post here that answer why, nor can you link to any suttra that answers why:)
The same with your certainty on the "Axiom of Rebirth", you made a mistake to say it was an axiom, because, simply it is not.
Why can you not give one line? You accuse me of all sorts, now I accuse you that yo have no idea either:)
I am happy to not speak with you again if you would prefer, but if you say "Mat you are wrong about X" without saying why I will always ask
Why?
sorry buddy, you have no idea what your talking about.
No, I do not belive in their accuracy. I believe the doctrine that supports and supported by the Four Noble Truths and The Three Marks is absoluitly certain, i am no more certain of anything.
The majic stuff, like litteral rebirth, and realms, i do not belive in.
>>The suttas are rife with talk of literally being reborn into different realms.
Hmmm... not really , not in the first, last etc... the ones that I assume, maybe wrongly, are the key ones.
Also, there are mentions, which seem to be contamination because tehre is no expliantion as to how Majic fits with Dharma:)
>>The Metta Sutta ends with the words "The pure-hearted one... is not born again into this world." (And no, it isn't a metaphor for the perpetuation of further craving states. The literal translation is "shall not again be born into a womb.")
Yes, I know:) I read that as meaning a renunciation of future rebirth , as in The Mirror of Dharma.
None of us shall be into a womb again.
How is that not compatible with the no rebith view?
>>>Do you see how ridiculous it is to even continue this discussion?
Then don't disuses. Please, just don't comment. Assume I am a troll and dont feed me:) I have no problem with that. Some here are helpful and constructive and I am happy to stick to talking with them:)
I am interested in Dharma not dogma:)
>>>Please limit your usage of smileys. It's difficult to tell whether you're being facetious or not when every other line of your post ends with a
I promise this, i am not being facetious or snidey or sarcastic. I write very matter of factly and I know I come over as bombastic etc, that's my issue not my intention. Nobody is perfect, escpially on the internet:p
If I smile, I'm being freindly in what often appears to be a really unfriendly environment to me:)
Be nice or ignore me:)
Mat
Answer my questions and I will go.
Simple.
If you cant answer them, just leave me alone please:)
You come over like a dogmatic bully to my ideas. That is not the way of the Buddha, surely?
actually its quite the opposite.
If i didnt help prevent you from bullying the posters of this site with your blatantly adharma rhetoric i would be violating my vows.
Your "questions"/assertions are not worthy of a serious response Mat. That is why one wont be given from me.
I have never pressured you with dogmatic bullying although to you it seems that anyone who doesnt think you are as smart as you think you are must be a dogmatic, or, "mystical" Buddhist.
What is dharma but what I say... ahhh rebith and vows against enquiry is it?
Wrong Speach
>>Your "questions"/assertions are not worthy of a serious response Mat. That is why one wont be given from me.
Then dont respond!
You reszponded to me to a Thread I started!
Can you not see how absurd that is?
Please, pass in silence
you have no idea what is or is not wrong speech.
The simple fact is that you consistently propagate what actually is wrong speech in every one of your posts.
you should have been banned a long time ago.