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.
M: I get the impression the Dalai Lama doesn't really think he is a Tulku...
S9: Can you remember off hand what he said, or did, to give you this impression? It’s interesting that you should say this.
I have read 3 of his books, and Tulku never came up in either one of them.
I also get a couple of magazines published by his people. They are quite well written with plenty of good articles. So I often end up reading them from cover to cover, accept for an occasional article. Yet, I have never once heard anyone referred to this. They just don’t seem to bring it up much.
It proves a point. You can argue that he didn't answer because he couldn't, and I can give a counter example, and you can explain away the counter example, and I can counter your counter, and nothing is proved. You haven't demonstrated that his reason for not answering was lack of an answer.
You are ignoring my point and debating the examples meant only as illustration. The point is that you are arguing from ignorance. You don't know why he didn't answer, and you are concluding, on the basis of that ignorance, that his reason for not answering supports your claims.
Ummm... because its mystcial stuff that doesnt gel with Dharma?
You are confusing your beliefs with the beliefs of other Buddhists. Other Buddhists don't believe that it doesn't gel with Dharma, and therefore aren't motivated by your beliefs to hide something up their sleeves.
The evidence comes from texts written after hundreds of years of massaging but culture and politics. Nobody knows what he said. We have just echos of hearsay.
All religions dogmatise and mystify their doctrines, see how this has happened with Christainity. Why should Buddhism be different?
I am not saying I am right, but it is simply blinkered of you to not even entertain the possibility.
This is a combination of straw dog and hand waving. The straw dog is your assertion that I won't entertain the possibility that the suttas have been changed. As a matter of fact, I know for certain that they have. I'm familiar with the results of scholarly work on this, and I know how scholars determined that there have been changes in the suttas.
The hand waving is the fact that you're bringing this up without providing any evidence that the teaching on rebirth was introduced after the fact. The truth is that the very evidence that shows that the nikayas and agamas have been edited and appended also shows that the teaching on rebirth dates can be confirmed less than sixty years after the Buddha died. Further more, the evidence shows that the people who preserved the nikayas and agamas were rather conservative; they preserved the same teachings, and in many cases the same sutras, over a long period of time. The idea that rebirth was introduced into these texts and permeated them so thoroughly in that limited time frame is not believable.
So there's quite a bit of evidence that the Buddha taught rebirth, and your hand waving doesn't hide the fact that there's no evidence that he didn't.
S9: Can you remember off hand what he said, or did, to give you this impression? It’s interesting that you should say this
As said "impression":) he seems a very scientific man, rational and not pulled easily. I have read many of his books and heard many of his talks as well.
Maybe he he is 100% sure he is one, I don't get that impression:)
You've demonstrated repeatedly and obsessively that you don't understand anatman.
Ya ya, I can see the way debates go here, we simply say the other doesnt understand.
Maybe you can show me what I am missing! I explain my take on it in this video
The hand waving is the fact that you're bringing this up without providing any evidence that the teaching on rebirth was introduced after the fact.
OK, we can go slowly through this one and see where we get up to? Firstly do you agree that:
1) We have zero direct connection to the teachings of the buddha.
2) Rebirth as a notion was around for millenia before the buddhha.
3) Religions seem to adopt their cultural memes.
4) Religions dominate people.
If you disagree with any or all of those please show me where I am mistaken.
The truth is that the very evidence that shows that the nikayas and agamas have been edited and appended also shows that the teaching on rebirth dates can be confirmed less than sixty years after the Buddha died.
This may be your answer to my point one above. Can you show my why you belive that? Its very new news to me! My essay here must be fundamentally flawed, can you tell me what the flaw is?
This is an interesting discussion I hope we can have with calm:)
M: As said "impression" he seems a very scientific man, rational and not pulled easily.
S9: Ah yes, that would make sense. : ^ )
But two points:
1: We are all a mass of contradictions, especially in our thoughts.
Amusing quote with no referrence to anyone on this thread:
“FOOLISH consistency is the hobgoblin of little mind’s” Oscar Wilde
2: DL is always looking for scientific reasons to confirm, and not disprove Buddhist ideas. Though I have no idea how this might lend itself to Tulku.
M: I have read many of his books and heard many of his talks as well.
S9: Yes, I would imagine you have. “No leaf unturned,” and all that. ; ^ )
M: Maybe he is 100% sure he is one, I don't get that impression.
S9: Yes, I was surprised to learn just how much we are able to pick up subliminally (and probably in other ways) that travel under our conscious radar.
It seems that we can pick up from body language and facial expressions things that appear for only a fraction of a second. So, that we know usable stuff, yet conscious mind doesn’t play it on the screen of our thinking mind.
This makes me wonder if ‘Being’ isn’t similar to this. Being is so very ‘Immediate’ that thinking mind cannot process it as a thought.
S9:DL is always looking for scientific reasons to confirm, and not disprove Buddhist ideas.
Yes, and he does this marvellously I feel. And eloquently. But from what I understand, not really with Rebirth. Have you read The Universe in a Single Atom?
What a book:)
(Incidentally I read today the panchan lama is being forced into the top position by china. A big injustice)
S9:This makes me wonder if ‘Being’ isn’t similar to this. Being is so very ‘Immediate’ that thinking mind cannot process it as a thought.
I am not sure what you mean? Being= existence =real?
OK, we can go slowly through this one and see where we get up to? Firstly do you agree that:
1) We have zero direct connection to the teachings of the buddha.
2) Rebirth as a notion was around for millenia before the buddhha.
3) Religions seem to adopt their cultural memes.
4) Religions dominate people.
If you disagree with any or all of those please show me where I am mistaken.
These are generalizations and you have no evidence to show that rebirth in Buddhism is a cultural leftover. The vast amount of sutras that reference it along with the teachings that are largely based on the Buddha's experience of rebirth and are not simply an adherence to cultural beliefs. I would like you to explain the case you actually have for this implication. I imagine it won't amount to much.
Additionally, you have yet to show how the teaching of rebirth does not logically fit with the teaching of Buddhism. You somehow have managed to not actually present a coherent argument in this regard. You have also failed to explain your understanding of anatman in this thread. I don't really feel like watching two 7-minute videos of yours right now. I'd prefer you demonstrate how you understand anatman in this thread.
I don't mind the debate, but it's been really loose and all over the place. I'm having a hard time pinning down your specific arguments and what comprises them. Therefore, it's difficult for me to really respond.
These are generalizations and you have no evidence to show that rebirth in Buddhism is a cultural leftover.
Hey, slow down:) Do you wnat to debate or shall we just waggle our dogmas at eash other:)
Frankly I am too tired and bored of all that here:)
So....
Forget all assumptions and expectations for a moment if you would be so kind. I will do the same.
And now lets try to answer these questions together:)
1) Do we have any certain connection to the teahcings of the Buddha?
I think, No we don't. For a vast number of reasons to do with time, distance, langauge, mechanism of transference etc etc... I have detailed these pretty convincinly in my essay here. But I imagine you wont need to read that to agree:)
What do you think?
2) Was Rebirth the Dominant notion in asia at the time before, during and after the Buddha?
I think, yes it was. Sure there were nihilist/anihliationst views but it seems in genral agreement rebirth like views in were the norm.
What do you think?
3) Are there other cases of religions that have been modified by their cultures to fit their culture?
I think, yes, all. We see this with the Christianity but also with greek, roman, Egyptian theologies all taking up aspects of their cultural development. I would wager we can find this phenomenon in all cultures and no doubt explain it.
What do you think?
4) Does it seem that most religions evolve to dominate their masses?
I think, yes. It has certainly happened with all religions I can think of (ignoring Buddhism for the moment). It happens today:)
What do you think?
If we can try to stay calm and focussed here it will be better for us:) So if you could kindly and as simply as possible give your 4 answers to my four questions above.
Well wishes
Mat
3) Religions seem to adopt their cultural memes.
4) Religions dominate people.
I am staying calm and focused, but I also see that you are setting up your argument. I don't agree with that argument and I've heard it plenty of times before.
ETA-My answers to your questions are irrelevant to my position on this topic.
I am staying calm and focused, but I also see that you are setting up your argument. I don't agree with that argument and I've heard it plenty of times before.
Can you show me where as I havent really forumulated the argument all the way and you can save me an aweful lot of time!
1) We have no direct connection to the Buddha-therefore we can assume the teachings do not represent the original teachings
2)Rebirth was the dominant belief in Asia, therefore that is the only reason we find Sutras about rebirth
3)Other religions have been modified to fit cultural beliefs so we can assume that Buddhism has done so in regard to rebirth
4)Religions dominate people so we can assume that Buddhism does the same.
If this is not where you were headed with your points, I'm not sure what relevance the questions had. Please explain if you were getting at something else.
1) We have no direct connection to the Buddha-therefore we can assume the teachings do not represent the original teachings
2)Rebirth was the dominant belief in Asia, therefore that is the only reason we find Sutras about rebirth
3)Other religions have been modified to fit cultural beliefs so we can assume that Buddhism has done so in regard to rebirth
4)Religions dominate people so we can assume that Buddhism does the same.
If this is not where you were headed with your points, I'm not sure what relevance the questions had. Please explain if you were getting at something else.
NO. your being obstructive not constructive:)
Can you tell me where you disagree with my points, not your assumptive interpretations of them?
Its not a trap, my reasoning, its a debate. Or at least the start of one, that was the diea, but as with many here, your way to defensive:)
Ya ya, I can see the way debates go here, we simply say the other doesnt understand.
When I pointed out what you were not getting, you dismissed it without giving any reason why I was wrong. This is the way _you_ do things. If you don't like it, deal with my points in a substantive way instead of ignoring them. I'm not wasting my time repeating myself for someone who ignores what I write.
OK, we can go slowly through this one and see where we get up to? Firstly do you agree that:
1) We have zero direct connection to the teachings of the buddha.
2) Rebirth as a notion was around for millenia before the buddhha.
3) Religions seem to adopt their cultural memes.
4) Religions dominate people.
Hand waving. It's not evidence.
We have evidence that the custodians of the Buddha's teaching did a fairly good job of preserving it with minimal change prior to the time it was written down. Hand waving doesn't refute the evidence.
This may be your answer to my point one above. Can you show my why you belive that? Its very new news to me! My essay here must be fundamentally flawed, can you tell me what the flaw is?
Basically, the flaw is that you made no effort to find out what scholars know about the various recorded versions of the Buddhas teachings. You make no effort to deal with the simularities between the nikayas and the various agamas. If isolated groups in different parts of India maintained vary similar records of the Buddha's teaching over a period of centuries without writing anything down, then you have to explain why they all introduced the same radical change, not just in one or two sutras, but throughout their sutra collections. And you also have to explain why competing groups, each claiming to maintain the true record of the teachings, cooperated with each other to introduce this change in the records of each group. If one group had tried to introduce a major innovation like that, the other groups would have accused it of heresy and we would have a record of the controversy. We do have records of the controversies that occurred when one group added something new; for example, we have records of the Pudgalavada controversy. But no record of a rebirth controversy.
The evidence we have strongly indicates that rebirth was part of Buddhism right from the beginning. There is no evidence for your claim.
I will try, please tell me which jargon you don't understand:)
The terms "simple system" and "'no soul' abstraction" could mean anything or nothing. I assume that systems and abstractions have some specific meaning in whatever field you are studying, but there's no context to give them meaning in this discussion.
Basically, the flaw is that you made no effort to find out what scholars know about the various recorded versions of the Buddhas teachings.
Ummm.... thats just wrong. As the "Was the Buddha a Buddhist" essay I linked to shows.
500 years, 1500 Miles, Many different languages later the Pali Cannon...
You make no effort to deal with the simularities between the nikayas and the various agamas. If isolated groups in different parts of India maintained vary similar records of the Buddha's teaching over a period of centuries without writing anything down, then you have to explain why they all introduced the same radical change, not just in one or two sutras, but throughout their sutra collections.
Errr... because its the same Later on Con used by all religions? Because its the same cultural masculinastion of the Dharma that effects all religions?
Frankly, the first month after the Buddhas death when they didn't even decide what to do is enough to bring in the skeptisism I am refering to:)
Dont forget, I am NOT SAYING I am right, I am saying simply you cannot be as certain as you claim;)
If one group had tried to introduce a major innovation like that, the other groups would have accused it of heresy
This actually happened:) In King Ashoka's time there were rifts over hearsay that lead to the first writing down of the PC. We dontknow what the rifts were about but there were not just to do with the Vinyana.
But no record of a rebirth controversy.
Could that be because of a wholesale change of doctrine as has happened in other religions, eg Irenus and Christianity?
The terms "simple system" and "'no soul' abstraction" could mean anything or nothing.
Anataman is realsied at all levels in all possible systems, from idealised systems of just a few points up to the emmergent mental/moral/spiritual abstractions of human expeirnce.
There are no objects.
All things are empty.
All things are connected.
There is no ego.
There is no soul.
These are the same Dharmic truth.
Does that make sense? If not please explain where I am unclear/mistaken.
Anataman is realsied at all levels in all possible systems, from idealised systems of just a few points up to the emmergent mental/moral/spiritual abstractions of human expeirnce.
There are no objects.
All things are empty.
All things are connected.
There is no ego.
There is no soul.
These are the same Dharmic truth.
Does that make sense? If not please explain where I am unclear/mistaken.
There is ultimate or absolute and relative truth.
Relatively speaking there are objects and apparent selves and qualities. Things and phenomena appear, but they are dreamlike. We invest ourselves and phenomena with a reality that doesn't exist ultimately.
I dont agree:) I believe things are either true or false or indeterminate/vague. I don't think there are catagories of truth that can be distinguished.
EG either you are dreaming of x,y,z or you are not.
I see the idea of different types of truth as a "cheat" used to get away with foundational issues once you start to allow the mystical in:)
I appreciate I may be wrong on this but it my opinion:)
I dont agree:) I believe things are either true or false or indeterminate/vague. I don't think there are catagories of truth that can be distinguished.
EG either you are dreaming of x,y,z or you are not.
I see the idea of different types of truth as a "cheat" used to get away with foundational issues once you start to allow the mystical in:)
I appreciate I may be wrong on this but it my opinion:)
Mat
No problem Mat.
I love it when you tell me I'm wrong. Just think of my posts as wind over vocal cords. I'm reiterating teachings that were offered to me and digested to the best of my ability. I'm no scholar of philosophy.
I love it when you tell me I'm wrong. Just think of my posts as wind over vocal cords.
I am not telling you you are wrong, I am telling you I think truth is absolute, at least in the sense relevant to objective truths about the world. This is a pretty standard view in western philosophy and scioence,its called The Law of Noncontradiction and it has been the cornerstone of thought in the west for millenia.
Incidentally, I think the Buddha must have believed it too to discover Dharma:)
Also, it is unreasonable to expect us to refer to your essays and videos without posting a breakdown of your arguments from those media with relevant snippets. That's just not the way forum philosophical debates work. You were capable of writing essays and making videos, please put forth the effort to break down your salient points in this discussion.
Also, it is unreasonable to expect us to refer to your essays and videos without posting a breakdown of your arguments from those media with relevant snippets. That's just not the way forum philosophical debates work. You were capable of writing essays and making videos, please put forth the effort to break down your salient points in this discussion.
You know, I have spent scores of hours here over the last months, often foolishly, often just because I let my ego get caught up in the chat. I am trying not to:)
I have spend even longer writing about Buddhism on my site.
If you cant spend the nine minutes it takes to watch a video or the five to read an essay you cant be that into the finding out answer:)
A common trend on this forum is to keep asking people to prove their value as a Buddhist and all that crap, its tempting to get suckered into it, but we should try to keep away from such indulgences.
You know, I have spent scores of hours here over the last months, often foolishly, often just because I let my ego get caught up in the chat. I am trying not to:)
I have spend even longer writing about Buddhism on my site.
If you cant spend the nine minutes it takes to watch a video or the five to read an essay you cant be that into the finding out answer:)
A common trend on this forum is to keep asking people to prove their value as a Buddhist and all that crap, its tempting to get suckered into it, but we should try to keep away from such indulgences.
I experience that phenomena here. Inadvertently, some posters are insulting. I don't think it's intended. It's the nature of quick reparte posting. The great value in the phenomena is we all get to look at our own minds and see how we get trapped into responding to insults.
The good thing is we are all trying to practice the dharma while we discuss it.
Errr... because its the same Later on Con used by all religions? Because its the same cultural masculinastion of the Dharma that effects all religions?
What the hell are you talking about? I've done a fair amount of reading in comparative religion and I've never heard of "Later on Con" or "cultural masculinisation."
Dont forget, I am NOT SAYING I am right, I am saying simply you cannot be as certain as you claim;)
What I have claimed is that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that rebirth was part of Buddhism from the beginning, and there is no evidence otherwise. I've indicated what evidence I'm talking about. Your only response to this has been hand waving.
Obviously I'm aware that it happened. I gave an example. Are you going to deal with the point, or are you going to ignore this also while continuing with the hand waving?
You know, I have spent scores of hours here over the last months, often foolishly, often just because I let my ego get caught up in the chat. I am trying not to:)
I have spend even longer writing about Buddhism on my site.
If you cant spend the nine minutes it takes to watch a video or the five to read an essay you cant be that into the finding out answer:)
A common trend on this forum is to keep asking people to prove their value as a Buddhist and all that crap, its tempting to get suckered into it, but we should try to keep away from such indulgences.
I am not saying you haven't put in a lot of hours, but we have requested that you put your points in the thread and that is generally forum etiquette. I'm not questioning your value as a Buddhist. I'm being very direct and to the point. So, once again, I don't see any major flaw in your 4 points, but rather where I think you're going with them. You have said I am incorrect in my thinking, so I'm going to go ahead and stop putting my thinking before what you want to communicate and let you continue.
1) We have zero direct connection to the teachings of the buddha.
2) Rebirth as a notion was around for millenia before the buddhha.
3) Religions seem to adopt their cultural memes.
4) Religions dominate people.
We seem compelled to accept at least the possibility that:
5) Orthodox Buddhism is a cultural modification Buddha's teachings.
Do you agree with this possibility? If not then I guess you need to explain why Buddhism is different from the Religions in points 3 and 4:)
1) We have zero direct connection to the teachings of the buddha.
2) Rebirth as a notion was around for millenia before the buddhha.
3) Religions seem to adopt their cultural memes.
4) Religions dominate people.
We seem compelled to accept at least the possibility that:
5) Orthodox Buddhism is a cultural modification Buddha's teachings.
Do you agree with this possibility? If not then I guess you need to explain why Buddhism is different from the Religions in points 3 and 4:)
What do you think? Can we agree on point 5?
Mat
This post makes little sense to me. What are you referring to that you are labelling as 'Orthodox Buddhism'?
What does this have to do with the topic of rebirth, that is taught in some Buddhist traditons, albeit variably?
In relative truth there is rebirth. In ultimate truth there is no rebirth.
These are the two truths of those who train with and come to understand the Buddhadharma.
Relative truth is imaginary. All we may speak of (write about) is that imagined truth. So the trap may be debating something that is only truly understood and known outside of discursive reasoning. Only correctly seasoned practitioners may truly know how to do this is any correct way.
So, some practitioners imagine Mat doesn't get it, and Mat doesn't get it cuz he's not really a practitioner. He may be interested in the Buddhadharma intellectually but not a genuine disciple of the Buddhadharma. He's a philosopher attempting to verify a provisional teaching (a pointing to something far deeper) through discursive means, which can never result in what is wished for because it is is fundamentally unskilful, by the standards of our training.
It's like a plumber reasoning the some aspect of window glazing is incorrect cuz they've read about window glazing and asked a window glazer who didn't give what they imagined was a correct answer by plumbing standards. Further, arguing that plumbing standards apply to glazing, also, when, in fact they never will because they are not the same discipline, even thought they may both be generalized as 'trades.'
This can only conduce to frustration and apparent hostility. So, maybe we can simply thank Mat for his effort and let him imagine whatever he wishes without getting sucked in to a fruitless debate.
Mat, I already know you'll disagree with this post. You may choose to respond as you normally do, with the "You are this or that." or simply remain silent and allow me my own imagination as expressed in this post. As I've written before it's entertaining blah blah blah, 'stuff' anyway. Enjoying 'Watching the Monkeys Jump', as my friend asked me.
Did you read the essay? I state the various reasons to support the view that the suttas cannot be accurate:)
What the hell are you talking about? I've done a fair amount of reading in comparative religion and I've never heard of "Later on Con" or "cultural masculinisation."
The Great Later on Con is my term for the idea that all religions manipulate the masses by a promise of reward in some later life for compromise in this life.
Its a con. Its my belief the Buddha saw this con and the middle path was his way to avoid it.
"Masculinisation", I mean the fact that the dominant male cultures through history propagate masculine cultural norms. EG epic, deep, hard and in religious terms these come out as the esoteric mystical stuff we see in all extant religions apart from the Church of The Isle of Lesbos, which currently only exists in my mind:P
What I have claimed is that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that rebirth was part of Buddhism from the beginning, and there is no evidence otherwise.
We have no evidence either way about the bigging of Buddhism:) Do you know otherwise?
I've indicated what evidence I'm talking about.
Where? A reference please? I have asked for links before you didnt provide:)
Irenus provided a record of gnostic controversies.
He edited the gospels accoring to his beliefs:)
If your going to reply i implore you to losoe the attitude:)
1) We have zero direct connection to the teachings of the buddha.
2) Rebirth as a notion was around for millenia before the buddhha.
3) Religions seem to adopt their cultural memes.
4) Religions dominate people.
We seem compelled to accept at least the possibility that:
5) Orthodox Buddhism is a cultural modification Buddha's teachings.
Do you agree with this possibility? If not then I guess you need to explain why Buddhism is different from the Religions in points 3 and 4:)
What do you think? Can we agree on point 5?
Mat
I agree there may have been modifications to the teachings. I do not feel that there is a whole lot to suggest that the teachings of rebirth were insulted due to points 3 and 4 though. Please give us the evidence you have for such an implication. I've taken a look at your essay and watched the first video of yours and they both have confirmed my thinking of where you are going with this. So no, I don't think we can fully agree on point 5.
Now, my lack of agreement on this does not prevent you from furthering your case beyond this post. I would like to see where your going with it and how you get to the point where you know that rebirth was merely a cultural addition.
Yes, fancy bells on the same issue: is there any sense in which this illusionary me now will exist after my death.
"Illusionary me" > "exist" > "my death"
There is no ego.
You just referred to your ego in your previous post. What do you mean "there is no ego"?
Ya ya, I can see the way debates go here, we simply say the other doesnt understand.
Maybe you can show me what I am missing! I explain my take on it in this video
I just watched your videos. You explain anicca as change, anatta as emptiness (and impermanence?), and dukkha as "the truth that any system will inevitably end." Before I comment on each of these, I have to say that the way you express your ideas comes off as very removed from practice, cold and mechanical. Even if all you state is true, it will be very difficult for anyone to connect with you and what you're saying and gain any benefit from your words.
Anatta is not simply emptiness or impermanence. You translate the term as "no-soul" which is not quite right. Generally "not-self" is the preferred translation. Anatta is meant to be a teaching instruction in which we find that there is nothing fit to be clung to not only as "self," but as "mine" as well. This discourse explains the teaching. Ultimately the statements "I have a self" and "I don't have a self" are incorrect and a result of dualistic thinking. Only once this is fully realized, however, and only once clinging and ignorance are eradicated, will dukkha cease.
Dukkha is not as you described it (it's very difficult to relate your video to the human experience of dukkha to be honest). Dukkha is an underlying... dis-ease or unsatisfactoriness in our experience that results from clinging to conditioned things. Whether we're feeling happy or sad, these states are characterized by it. When we stop clinging to conditioned things for happiness, then we've attained the unconditioned peace of Nibbana.
1) We have zero direct connection to the teachings of the buddha.
2) Rebirth as a notion was around for millenia before the buddhha.
3) Religions seem to adopt their cultural memes.
4) Religions dominate people.
If you disagree with any or all of those please show me where I am mistaken.
True. Now we can replace the word "rebirth" with "kamma" and the same would still be true, yet I see on your site that you understand how kamma fits into the teachings. The Buddha often borrowed and redefined common terminology for the purpose of his own teachings. Is it possible you misunderstand the Buddhist teaching of rebirth and its role in practice? Many people who hold the belief also do, granted; it's difficult to not assume a self.
In relative truth there is rebirth. In ultimate truth there is no rebirth.
These are the two truths of those who train with and come to understand the Buddhadharma.
Relative truth is imaginary. All we may speak of (write about) is that imagined truth. So the trap may be debating something that is only truly understood and known outside of discursive reasoning. Only correctly seasoned practitioners may truly know how to do this is any correct way.
So, some practitioners imagine Mat doesn't get it, and Mat doesn't get it cuz he's not really a practitioner. He may be interested in the Buddhadharma intellectually but not a genuine disciple of the Buddhadharma. He's a philosopher attempting to verify a provisional teaching (a pointing to something far deeper) through discursive means, which can never result in what is wished for because it is is fundamentally unskilful, by the standards of our training.
It's like a plumber reasoning the some aspect of window glazing is incorrect cuz they've read about window glazing and asked a window glazer who didn't give what they imagined was a correct answer by plumbing standards. Further, arguing that plumbing standards apply to glazing, also, when, in fact they never will because they are not the same discipline, even thought they may both be generalized as 'trades.'
This can only conduce to frustration and apparent hostility. So, maybe we can simply thank Mat for his effort and let him imagine whatever he wishes without getting sucked in to a fruitless debate.
Mat, I already know you'll disagree with this post. You may choose to respond as you normally do, with the "You are this or that." or simply remain silent and allow me my own imagination as expressed in this post. As I've written before it's entertaining blah blah blah, 'stuff' anyway. Enjoying 'Watching the Monkeys Jump', as my friend asked me.
Best Wishes for all
Hey Bob
I agree 100% I come at Dharma from a western analytical philosophical point. This viewpoint is incompatible with the msycial viewpoint you and many others come from.
I agree, if you are talking msytcial, leave me alone and let me chatter and jump with the monkeys:)
I am interested in Buddhist Philosophy not Buddhist faith:)
Mat do you have any practical questions related to our discipline?
Will you share the experience of your own training in the Buddhadharma, from your heart?
This is a Buddhist forum. Perhaps a philosopher's forum may be a more suitable place for you to pose your philosophical question(s)?
Well Wishes For All
From my heart, we all come into the dharma in different places. Some of us lead with intellect and are interested in ideas and concepts.
It hurts to see you suggest that Mat take a hike to another forum entirely because you don't like the content of the thread. Buddhist philosophy has a place in a Buddhist forum. JMO
I've taken a look at your essay and watched the first video of yours and they both have confirmed my thinking of where you are going with this.
So, where?
I am not going anywhere with this. I would like to discuss the idea the buddha was against the idea of rebirth.
It may be crackpot and wrong view and bonkers, but I would like to see that rather than have it shouted at my by the dogma I am questioning in the first place.
Ok, let me restate my point 5 in a way that may be better to get some agreement on.
5) Orthodox Buddhism may not be the teachings of the Buddha.
I am not going anywhere with this. I would like to discuss the idea the buddha was against the idea of rebirth.
It may be crackpot and wrong view and bonkers, but I would like to see that rather than have it shouted at my by the dogma I am questioning in the first place.
Ok, let me restate my point 5 in a way that may be better to get some agreement on.
5) Orthodox Buddhism may not be the teachings of the Buddha.
Do you agree with that possibility?
Mat
For the second time, I respectfully ask you to explain what you are referring to with the label 'Orthodox Buddhism'.
Mat, no offense, but I believe you are experiencing 'incredulity' not 'mood'. You are the one making positive statements and please expect to be met with confusion when you use terms that you've made up. Debates typically have this, especially when there are big disconnects in our frames of reference. I have been studying Buddhism for the last 8-10 years and at times, quite intensively. It seems you feel you have found some knowledge or skepticism that myself and others have not already considered and weighed heavily.
So far you have not presented much of anything I haven't already considered. I have studied the history of the early Christian church and understand the degree to which Bishop Iranaeus along with the Nicean council butchered and distorted many things. I have yet to come across similar accounts though in regard to Buddhism. That is also the point Ren is trying to make. We have record of the distortions with Christianity, but none in Buddhism. In other words, we are talking evidence vs no evidence. I do think it is quite plausible that aspects of the Buddhist Sutras/Suttas have been changed or do not reflect the actual Buddha's words with 100% accuracy, but they (the teachings on rebirth) are so heavily embedded in them that it seems unlikely to me that they were merely invented to conform with societal standards of the time. Especially considering that the Buddha outright rejected certain societal standards such as the caste system.
And even if rebirth was a cultural addition, I would still like to see where the teaching of rebirth does not mesh with Buddhism on the whole.
Mat, that's the point. I'm a disciple of a practice oriented discipline. Concepts like 'mystical' .... have no real place or meaning in this discipline. So, being conditioned in this practical view of things, when I read your posts I imagine, most vividly, the stuff that is discordant with the discipline; like the approach to communication, not the philosophical point or the imaginary labels you seem to ascribe to those who disagree with you to support your own point of view, which in itself is unskilful by the standards of this training.
So, this is why I share the disagreement I have with you. It's not about the idea of rebirth. It never has been. It's about the practical basis and approach as inappropriate to the practical discipline.
From my heart, we all come into the dharma in different places. Some of us lead with intellect and are interested in ideas and concepts.
It hurts to see you suggest that Mat take a hike to another forum entirely because you don't like the content of the thread. Buddhist philosophy has a place in a Buddhist forum. JMO
Hi Sky
Sixteen ago I was teaching philosophy at university and one of my tutees came to me and asked about doing a module on Buddhism.
I was like..."Wft?"
I did some asking around the department, to much smirking at the notion of teaching Buddhism in that philosophy department. It wasn't possible.
Of course it wasn't possible!:)
I was with the smirkers on this issue, Buddhism was to me just eastern mumbo jumbo.
Years later I was living in Sri lanka, working with Buddhists at the university, and slowly I started reading and talking with them about Dharma and it started to dawn on me that..."Hang on a moment, this isn't mumbo jumbo...."
The skandhas, the three marks, eventually the 4NT really started to make sense to me, and not only that it all seemed to fit in perfectly with western logic and current science.
It was a slow but huge revelation for me. By far the biggest change in my life, bigger than wife and kids and an Ipod touch.
So yes, I come at Buddhism from just about the coldest most analytical most skepctial position possible. And its fine that these mystics like bob think im a sham and all that.
Mat, that's the point. I'm a disciple of a practice oriented discipline. Concepts like 'mystical' .... have no real place or meaning in this discipline. So, being conditioned in this practical view of things, when I read your posts I imagine, most vividly, the stuff that is discordant with the discipline; like the approach to communication, not the philosophical point or the imaginary labels you seem to ascribe to those who disagree with you to support your own point of view, which in itself is unskilful by the standards of this training.
So, this is why I share the disagreement I have with you. It's not about the idea of rebirth. It never has been. It's about the practical basis and approach as inappropriate to the practical discipline.
Hunny, you light an insesnse stick and let us doubters be our own lights;)
I am not going anywhere with this. I would like to discuss the idea the buddha was against the idea of rebirth.
It may be crackpot and wrong view and bonkers, but I would like to see that rather than have it shouted at my by the dogma I am questioning in the first place.
Ok, let me restate my point 5 in a way that may be better to get some agreement on.
5) Orthodox Buddhism may not be the teachings of the Buddha.
Do you agree with that possibility?
Mat
Quit getting offended and move on with the discussion. You want a debate, then quite getting caught up in your projected emotions. In regard to point 5, the most I'll say is that there is a good likelihood that the Sutras do not reflect the entirety of what the Buddha taught with 100% accuracy. However, when you study the sutras in depth, you begin to see how often they cross-reference the same teachings and are based on the same philosophical points. In that regard, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that rebirth teachings were falsely inserted into the sutras.
I also highly disagree with your assertion that the Buddha was against rebirth and you have yet to demonstrate the incompatibilities that would lead us to such a conclusion.
Comments
M: I get the impression the Dalai Lama doesn't really think he is a Tulku...
S9: Can you remember off hand what he said, or did, to give you this impression? It’s interesting that you should say this.
I have read 3 of his books, and Tulku never came up in either one of them.
I also get a couple of magazines published by his people. They are quite well written with plenty of good articles. So I often end up reading them from cover to cover, accept for an occasional article. Yet, I have never once heard anyone referred to this. They just don’t seem to bring it up much.
Warm regards,
S9
You are ignoring my point and debating the examples meant only as illustration. The point is that you are arguing from ignorance. You don't know why he didn't answer, and you are concluding, on the basis of that ignorance, that his reason for not answering supports your claims.
You are confusing your beliefs with the beliefs of other Buddhists. Other Buddhists don't believe that it doesn't gel with Dharma, and therefore aren't motivated by your beliefs to hide something up their sleeves.
You've demonstrated repeatedly and obsessively that you don't understand anatman.
This is a combination of straw dog and hand waving. The straw dog is your assertion that I won't entertain the possibility that the suttas have been changed. As a matter of fact, I know for certain that they have. I'm familiar with the results of scholarly work on this, and I know how scholars determined that there have been changes in the suttas.
The hand waving is the fact that you're bringing this up without providing any evidence that the teaching on rebirth was introduced after the fact. The truth is that the very evidence that shows that the nikayas and agamas have been edited and appended also shows that the teaching on rebirth dates can be confirmed less than sixty years after the Buddha died. Further more, the evidence shows that the people who preserved the nikayas and agamas were rather conservative; they preserved the same teachings, and in many cases the same sutras, over a long period of time. The idea that rebirth was introduced into these texts and permeated them so thoroughly in that limited time frame is not believable.
So there's quite a bit of evidence that the Buddha taught rebirth, and your hand waving doesn't hide the fact that there's no evidence that he didn't.
Can you say this in a way that doesn't involve the jargon of some field irrelevant to what we're discussing?
As said "impression":) he seems a very scientific man, rational and not pulled easily. I have read many of his books and heard many of his talks as well.
Maybe he he is 100% sure he is one, I don't get that impression:)
Mat
Ya ya, I can see the way debates go here, we simply say the other doesnt understand.
Maybe you can show me what I am missing! I explain my take on it in this video
OK, we can go slowly through this one and see where we get up to? Firstly do you agree that:
1) We have zero direct connection to the teachings of the buddha.
2) Rebirth as a notion was around for millenia before the buddhha.
3) Religions seem to adopt their cultural memes.
4) Religions dominate people.
If you disagree with any or all of those please show me where I am mistaken.
This may be your answer to my point one above. Can you show my why you belive that? Its very new news to me! My essay here must be fundamentally flawed, can you tell me what the flaw is?
This is an interesting discussion I hope we can have with calm:)
Mat
I will try, please tell me which jargon you don't understand:)
M: As said "impression" he seems a very scientific man, rational and not pulled easily.
S9: Ah yes, that would make sense. : ^ )
But two points:
1: We are all a mass of contradictions, especially in our thoughts.
Amusing quote with no referrence to anyone on this thread:
“FOOLISH consistency is the hobgoblin of little mind’s” Oscar Wilde
2: DL is always looking for scientific reasons to confirm, and not disprove Buddhist ideas. Though I have no idea how this might lend itself to Tulku.
M: I have read many of his books and heard many of his talks as well.
S9: Yes, I would imagine you have. “No leaf unturned,” and all that. ; ^ )
M: Maybe he is 100% sure he is one, I don't get that impression.
S9: Yes, I was surprised to learn just how much we are able to pick up subliminally (and probably in other ways) that travel under our conscious radar.
It seems that we can pick up from body language and facial expressions things that appear for only a fraction of a second. So, that we know usable stuff, yet conscious mind doesn’t play it on the screen of our thinking mind.
This makes me wonder if ‘Being’ isn’t similar to this. Being is so very ‘Immediate’ that thinking mind cannot process it as a thought.
How I do go on. ; ^ )
Warm regards,
S9
Yes, and he does this marvellously I feel. And eloquently. But from what I understand, not really with Rebirth. Have you read The Universe in a Single Atom?
What a book:)
(Incidentally I read today the panchan lama is being forced into the top position by china. A big injustice)
S9:This makes me wonder if ‘Being’ isn’t similar to this. Being is so very ‘Immediate’ that thinking mind cannot process it as a thought.
I am not sure what you mean? Being= existence =real?
Much metta
Mat
These are generalizations and you have no evidence to show that rebirth in Buddhism is a cultural leftover. The vast amount of sutras that reference it along with the teachings that are largely based on the Buddha's experience of rebirth and are not simply an adherence to cultural beliefs. I would like you to explain the case you actually have for this implication. I imagine it won't amount to much.
Additionally, you have yet to show how the teaching of rebirth does not logically fit with the teaching of Buddhism. You somehow have managed to not actually present a coherent argument in this regard. You have also failed to explain your understanding of anatman in this thread. I don't really feel like watching two 7-minute videos of yours right now. I'd prefer you demonstrate how you understand anatman in this thread.
I don't mind the debate, but it's been really loose and all over the place. I'm having a hard time pinning down your specific arguments and what comprises them. Therefore, it's difficult for me to really respond.
ETA-My answers to your questions are irrelevant to my position on this topic.
Can you show me where as I havent really forumulated the argument all the way and you can save me an aweful lot of time!
I look forwards to your links
1) We have no direct connection to the Buddha-therefore we can assume the teachings do not represent the original teachings
2)Rebirth was the dominant belief in Asia, therefore that is the only reason we find Sutras about rebirth
3)Other religions have been modified to fit cultural beliefs so we can assume that Buddhism has done so in regard to rebirth
4)Religions dominate people so we can assume that Buddhism does the same.
If this is not where you were headed with your points, I'm not sure what relevance the questions had. Please explain if you were getting at something else.
NO. your being obstructive not constructive:)
Can you tell me where you disagree with my points, not your assumptive interpretations of them?
Its not a trap, my reasoning, its a debate. Or at least the start of one, that was the diea, but as with many here, your way to defensive:)
Mat
I did this in the video and essay I pointed to. If I have made a mistake there kindly clarify:)
I am not here to justify my understanding of Buddhism I am here to improve it, or at least have interesting debates about Dharma.
If your going to be aggressive/defensive lets not talk:)
Peace out good buddy!:)
Mat
Get real. I'm not wasting my time with a video. If you have something relevant to say, put it in writing.
Hand waving. It's not evidence.
We have evidence that the custodians of the Buddha's teaching did a fairly good job of preserving it with minimal change prior to the time it was written down. Hand waving doesn't refute the evidence.
Basically, the flaw is that you made no effort to find out what scholars know about the various recorded versions of the Buddhas teachings. You make no effort to deal with the simularities between the nikayas and the various agamas. If isolated groups in different parts of India maintained vary similar records of the Buddha's teaching over a period of centuries without writing anything down, then you have to explain why they all introduced the same radical change, not just in one or two sutras, but throughout their sutra collections. And you also have to explain why competing groups, each claiming to maintain the true record of the teachings, cooperated with each other to introduce this change in the records of each group. If one group had tried to introduce a major innovation like that, the other groups would have accused it of heresy and we would have a record of the controversy. We do have records of the controversies that occurred when one group added something new; for example, we have records of the Pudgalavada controversy. But no record of a rebirth controversy.
The evidence we have strongly indicates that rebirth was part of Buddhism right from the beginning. There is no evidence for your claim.
Anataman is realsied at all levels in all possible systems, from idealised systems of just a few points up to the emmergent mental/moral/spiritual abstractions of human expeirnce.
There are no objects.
All things are empty.
All things are connected.
There is no ego.
There is no soul.
These are the same Dharmic truth.
Does that make sense? If not please explain where I am unclear/mistaken.
Relatively speaking there are objects and apparent selves and qualities. Things and phenomena appear, but they are dreamlike. We invest ourselves and phenomena with a reality that doesn't exist ultimately.
I dont agree:) I believe things are either true or false or indeterminate/vague. I don't think there are catagories of truth that can be distinguished.
EG either you are dreaming of x,y,z or you are not.
I see the idea of different types of truth as a "cheat" used to get away with foundational issues once you start to allow the mystical in:)
I appreciate I may be wrong on this but it my opinion:)
Mat
I love it when you tell me I'm wrong. Just think of my posts as wind over vocal cords. I'm reiterating teachings that were offered to me and digested to the best of my ability. I'm no scholar of philosophy.
Let's say I agree with you on those questions. Now what?
I am not telling you you are wrong, I am telling you I think truth is absolute, at least in the sense relevant to objective truths about the world. This is a pretty standard view in western philosophy and scioence,its called The Law of Noncontradiction and it has been the cornerstone of thought in the west for millenia.
Incidentally, I think the Buddha must have believed it too to discover Dharma:)
Mat
Yes, fancy bells on the same issue: is there any sense in which this illusionary me now will exist after my death.
Do you agree with the points? I would like a serious structured debate, not a mind game:)
If you dont agree with them lets go back over them and see why not or where I am mistaken?
Mat
For the sake of discussion, I'll agree with your points. Let's please move on to your response.
You know, I have spent scores of hours here over the last months, often foolishly, often just because I let my ego get caught up in the chat. I am trying not to:)
I have spend even longer writing about Buddhism on my site.
If you cant spend the nine minutes it takes to watch a video or the five to read an essay you cant be that into the finding out answer:)
A common trend on this forum is to keep asking people to prove their value as a Buddhist and all that crap, its tempting to get suckered into it, but we should try to keep away from such indulgences.
I experience that phenomena here. Inadvertently, some posters are insulting. I don't think it's intended. It's the nature of quick reparte posting. The great value in the phenomena is we all get to look at our own minds and see how we get trapped into responding to insults.
The good thing is we are all trying to practice the dharma while we discuss it.
I am not saying you haven't put in a lot of hours, but we have requested that you put your points in the thread and that is generally forum etiquette. I'm not questioning your value as a Buddhist. I'm being very direct and to the point. So, once again, I don't see any major flaw in your 4 points, but rather where I think you're going with them. You have said I am incorrect in my thinking, so I'm going to go ahead and stop putting my thinking before what you want to communicate and let you continue.
Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I win.
YOU LOOSE!!!!!
That's a joke;)
Ok, so given your agreement in these 4 points:
1) We have zero direct connection to the teachings of the buddha.
2) Rebirth as a notion was around for millenia before the buddhha.
3) Religions seem to adopt their cultural memes.
4) Religions dominate people.
We seem compelled to accept at least the possibility that:
5) Orthodox Buddhism is a cultural modification Buddha's teachings.
Do you agree with this possibility? If not then I guess you need to explain why Buddhism is different from the Religions in points 3 and 4:)
What do you think? Can we agree on point 5?
Mat
What does this have to do with the topic of rebirth, that is taught in some Buddhist traditons, albeit variably?
These are the two truths of those who train with and come to understand the Buddhadharma.
Relative truth is imaginary. All we may speak of (write about) is that imagined truth. So the trap may be debating something that is only truly understood and known outside of discursive reasoning. Only correctly seasoned practitioners may truly know how to do this is any correct way.
So, some practitioners imagine Mat doesn't get it, and Mat doesn't get it cuz he's not really a practitioner. He may be interested in the Buddhadharma intellectually but not a genuine disciple of the Buddhadharma. He's a philosopher attempting to verify a provisional teaching (a pointing to something far deeper) through discursive means, which can never result in what is wished for because it is is fundamentally unskilful, by the standards of our training.
It's like a plumber reasoning the some aspect of window glazing is incorrect cuz they've read about window glazing and asked a window glazer who didn't give what they imagined was a correct answer by plumbing standards. Further, arguing that plumbing standards apply to glazing, also, when, in fact they never will because they are not the same discipline, even thought they may both be generalized as 'trades.'
This can only conduce to frustration and apparent hostility. So, maybe we can simply thank Mat for his effort and let him imagine whatever he wishes without getting sucked in to a fruitless debate.
Mat, I already know you'll disagree with this post. You may choose to respond as you normally do, with the "You are this or that." or simply remain silent and allow me my own imagination as expressed in this post. As I've written before it's entertaining blah blah blah, 'stuff' anyway. Enjoying 'Watching the Monkeys Jump', as my friend asked me.
Best Wishes for all
Did you intend to insult Mat and anyone else posting on this thread in your post? What do you mean by the phrase 'enjoying watching the monkeys jump'?
sky
Did you read the essay? I state the various reasons to support the view that the suttas cannot be accurate:)
The Great Later on Con is my term for the idea that all religions manipulate the masses by a promise of reward in some later life for compromise in this life.
Its a con. Its my belief the Buddha saw this con and the middle path was his way to avoid it.
"Masculinisation", I mean the fact that the dominant male cultures through history propagate masculine cultural norms. EG epic, deep, hard and in religious terms these come out as the esoteric mystical stuff we see in all extant religions apart from the Church of The Isle of Lesbos, which currently only exists in my mind:P
We have no evidence either way about the bigging of Buddhism:) Do you know otherwise?
Where? A reference please? I have asked for links before you didnt provide:)
He edited the gospels accoring to his beliefs:)
If your going to reply i implore you to losoe the attitude:)
be nice
Mat
Will you share the experience of your own training in the Buddhadharma, from your heart?
This is a Buddhist forum. Perhaps a philosopher's forum may be a more suitable place for you to pose your philosophical question(s)?
Well Wishes For All
I agree there may have been modifications to the teachings. I do not feel that there is a whole lot to suggest that the teachings of rebirth were insulted due to points 3 and 4 though. Please give us the evidence you have for such an implication. I've taken a look at your essay and watched the first video of yours and they both have confirmed my thinking of where you are going with this. So no, I don't think we can fully agree on point 5.
Now, my lack of agreement on this does not prevent you from furthering your case beyond this post. I would like to see where your going with it and how you get to the point where you know that rebirth was merely a cultural addition.
"Illusionary me" > "exist" > "my death"
You just referred to your ego in your previous post.
I just watched your videos. You explain anicca as change, anatta as emptiness (and impermanence?), and dukkha as "the truth that any system will inevitably end." Before I comment on each of these, I have to say that the way you express your ideas comes off as very removed from practice, cold and mechanical. Even if all you state is true, it will be very difficult for anyone to connect with you and what you're saying and gain any benefit from your words.
Anatta is not simply emptiness or impermanence. You translate the term as "no-soul" which is not quite right. Generally "not-self" is the preferred translation. Anatta is meant to be a teaching instruction in which we find that there is nothing fit to be clung to not only as "self," but as "mine" as well. This discourse explains the teaching. Ultimately the statements "I have a self" and "I don't have a self" are incorrect and a result of dualistic thinking. Only once this is fully realized, however, and only once clinging and ignorance are eradicated, will dukkha cease.
Dukkha is not as you described it (it's very difficult to relate your video to the human experience of dukkha to be honest). Dukkha is an underlying... dis-ease or unsatisfactoriness in our experience that results from clinging to conditioned things. Whether we're feeling happy or sad, these states are characterized by it. When we stop clinging to conditioned things for happiness, then we've attained the unconditioned peace of Nibbana.
True. Now we can replace the word "rebirth" with "kamma" and the same would still be true, yet I see on your site that you understand how kamma fits into the teachings. The Buddha often borrowed and redefined common terminology for the purpose of his own teachings. Is it possible you misunderstand the Buddhist teaching of rebirth and its role in practice? Many people who hold the belief also do, granted; it's difficult to not assume a self.
Hey Bob
I agree 100% I come at Dharma from a western analytical philosophical point. This viewpoint is incompatible with the msycial viewpoint you and many others come from.
I agree, if you are talking msytcial, leave me alone and let me chatter and jump with the monkeys:)
I am interested in Buddhist Philosophy not Buddhist faith:)
Salome
Mat
It hurts to see you suggest that Mat take a hike to another forum entirely because you don't like the content of the thread. Buddhist philosophy has a place in a Buddhist forum. JMO
So, where?
I am not going anywhere with this. I would like to discuss the idea the buddha was against the idea of rebirth.
It may be crackpot and wrong view and bonkers, but I would like to see that rather than have it shouted at my by the dogma I am questioning in the first place.
Ok, let me restate my point 5 in a way that may be better to get some agreement on.
5) Orthodox Buddhism may not be the teachings of the Buddha.
Do you agree with that possibility?
Mat
So far you have not presented much of anything I haven't already considered. I have studied the history of the early Christian church and understand the degree to which Bishop Iranaeus along with the Nicean council butchered and distorted many things. I have yet to come across similar accounts though in regard to Buddhism. That is also the point Ren is trying to make. We have record of the distortions with Christianity, but none in Buddhism. In other words, we are talking evidence vs no evidence. I do think it is quite plausible that aspects of the Buddhist Sutras/Suttas have been changed or do not reflect the actual Buddha's words with 100% accuracy, but they (the teachings on rebirth) are so heavily embedded in them that it seems unlikely to me that they were merely invented to conform with societal standards of the time. Especially considering that the Buddha outright rejected certain societal standards such as the caste system.
And even if rebirth was a cultural addition, I would still like to see where the teaching of rebirth does not mesh with Buddhism on the whole.
So, this is why I share the disagreement I have with you. It's not about the idea of rebirth. It never has been. It's about the practical basis and approach as inappropriate to the practical discipline.
Hi Sky
Sixteen ago I was teaching philosophy at university and one of my tutees came to me and asked about doing a module on Buddhism.
I was like..."Wft?"
I did some asking around the department, to much smirking at the notion of teaching Buddhism in that philosophy department. It wasn't possible.
Of course it wasn't possible!:)
I was with the smirkers on this issue, Buddhism was to me just eastern mumbo jumbo.
Years later I was living in Sri lanka, working with Buddhists at the university, and slowly I started reading and talking with them about Dharma and it started to dawn on me that..."Hang on a moment, this isn't mumbo jumbo...."
The skandhas, the three marks, eventually the 4NT really started to make sense to me, and not only that it all seemed to fit in perfectly with western logic and current science.
It was a slow but huge revelation for me. By far the biggest change in my life, bigger than wife and kids and an Ipod touch.
So yes, I come at Buddhism from just about the coldest most analytical most skepctial position possible. And its fine that these mystics like bob think im a sham and all that.
Dharma is truth.
Well wishes
Mat
Hunny, you light an insesnse stick and let us doubters be our own lights;)
Quit getting offended and move on with the discussion. You want a debate, then quite getting caught up in your projected emotions. In regard to point 5, the most I'll say is that there is a good likelihood that the Sutras do not reflect the entirety of what the Buddha taught with 100% accuracy. However, when you study the sutras in depth, you begin to see how often they cross-reference the same teachings and are based on the same philosophical points. In that regard, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that rebirth teachings were falsely inserted into the sutras.
I also highly disagree with your assertion that the Buddha was against rebirth and you have yet to demonstrate the incompatibilities that would lead us to such a conclusion.