Eudaimonist

Well, you've just lost all credibility. Siddhartha would clearly have become an Objectivist.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

AdamWho

St Robert:
You comment is ironic because Buddhism has existed a lot longer than Christianity and some scholars have suggested that Jesus' stressing of compassion over The Law was the result of exposure to eastern thought. So you might just have it backwards. .

Please realize that the vast majority of people on this site understand Christianity thoroughly and have rejected it so throwing cheap one liners instead of thoughtful comments hurts your "witness".

boneyard bill:
I am sure that you mean logic instead of reason. Reason is a combination of the logical and empirical.

As far as your syllogism, you are wrong to say that your premises don't have to be correct for the argument to be correct. Maybe you misunderstood someone. It is a structurally correct example of modus ponens but is not a valid or sound argument.

The following thread goes into more detail.
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000291" target="_blank">A proof that there is a God</a>

Is desire the cause of a suffering, or can it be classified as more broadly as: "some psychological state is the cause of a suffering?" Does suffering actually exist or is it a subjective illusion? Do blanket statements like "X is the cause of a suffering" make any sense?

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]</p>

St. Robert

This forum doesn't allow for stirring the pot every now and zen?

Admitting wrong is a doing, but doing should be a response not a work. Often, many Christians try 'to do' for God instead of responding to what God has already 'done' for them in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

The eight-fold path (a work) is viewed as a means to enlightenment rather than a response to enlightenment. You have 'to do' to get (peace, joy, etc.). In Christianity, works should be a response to salvation rather than a means to salvation. You do, because you have (peace, joy, etc.). These are huge differences.

My comment about Siddartha was geniune from a biblical perspective. It was not intended to be cheap. Just thought provoking.

According to Jesus, He was before Abraham (John 8:58). Since Abraham was before Siddartha and Jesus was before Abraham, Jesus was before Siddartha.

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

boneyard bill

Posted by Eudaimonist:

I think Siddhartha would have rejected any slavish dependence on scripture. He might well have accepted the notion of Christ as a way of communicating cross-culturally. Howerver, he's much closer to the Christian gnostics than he is to the apostolic church. But he generally rejected the prevailing religious notions of his day. He definitely opposed the sacrificial traditions of the Brahmin priesthood, and his basic philosophy stands as a critique of the Vedanta philosophy which was current in his time.

Of course, he definitely would not have been an objectivist. (I assume this claim was made tongue in cheek.) He would not have endorsed the virtue of selfishness and, as already noted, he rejected reason as being tautological.

boneyard bill

Adam Who writes:

I can't site my sources on this but I read somewhere about someone who claims to have traced the beatitudes to Buddhism.

Yes. I am using reason in the same sense as logic. Logic does not give us new information about the world that isn't present through experience. It just helps us flush out what we know through experience.

I didn't say my syllogism was correct. I said it was valid. If the argument is valid it does not, of course, prove the correctness of the premises.

boneyard bill

Adam Who writes:

Of course, a statement "x is the cause of suffering" makes perfect sense. It may or may not be true, but it makes sense. Desire or, as I prefer - "obsession" IS a psychological state. And suffering is also a psychological state. So what doesn't make much sense is to say that some (unspecified) psychological state causes suffering. An unspecified psychological state causes a specified psychological state. This may be true, but it is most unhelpful.

Eudaimonist

Yes, of course that was tongue-in-cheek.

Eudaimonist

It could be both. People who are enlightened may find practicing the eightfold path effortless and natural. boneyard bill?

Sure, but what does Christianity have to do with non-Christians? Perhaps that is what works for Christians, but Buddhists are employing a different technology that may still achieve the right effect. Among the ancient Greeks who sought ataraxia, roughly equivalent to what we call "inner peace", the Stoics and Epicureans had their own technologies too. I'm not suggesting that any path will work, but I don't see any reason why there can't be more than one road to inner-peace.

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

boneyard bill

Eudaimonia asks:

I don't think there's any clear-cut answer. Different schools approach it differently. The eightfold path was the original therapy. But as I have pointed out, the Mahayana schools have tried to come up with different approaches. One of these is the Pure Land School that advocates a simple faith like that espoused by St. Robert.

It is certainly clear that the four noble truths prescribe the eightfold path as the way to achieve enlightenment. However, the early texts also tell of Buddha giving a sermon and, as a result of the sermon, certain people attained nirvana. So the eightfold path isn't seen as the only way. They even distinguish between this instant nirvana as nirvana with residue and the nirvana of the eightfold path which is nirvana without residue.

My personal opinion is that it is a combination. And, I might add, I think that's the best reading of Christian scripture as well. It is very clear in Paul's letters that salvation can be lost by certain actions. So works do count.

You can't focus on the egoistic self and maintain any kind of "selfless" relationship to God or the world or anything else. So my view is that all religions aim to instill a kind of un-self-concerned consciousness, and they have different ways of going about it. Some empasize ritual, some prayer, some meditation, some scripture reading, etc.

This much I'm convinced of, there is a difference between a religious and a secular consciousness. And I think Buddhism states the reason for this difference most directly and in ways that are easily comprehensible to the modern mind. It all centers around the Buddhist claim that the ego is an abstraction, an illusion. And because of this faulty identification with a mere self-concept, we our alienated from our true nature and misunderstand the nature of existence as well.

I would also like to clarify a point. I said that, in my view, the eightfold path should be understood as a therapy, not an ethic. This does not mean that Buddhism is lacking in an ethic. When you lose your "self" you quit focusing on your own ego and relate to the world differently. In Christianity you are supposed to be guided by love. In Buddhism it is compassion. The eightfold path isn't some kind of ten commandments that needs to be rigidly adhered to by someone who has attained nirvana. The person who has extinguished his self will naturally act with compassion because he understands that his "self" includes everything within his experience.

AdamWho

boneyard bill, the reason I asked the questions:

Is because I think they are more fundamental than the mechanics of Buddhism.
1. If we can understand the underlying psychological states which causes a person to suffer then we have made real progress.

2. I do think that suffering is a subjective illusion, and I think Buddhism agrees. However, some people like to give objective weight to their emotions?

Your answer: yes

3. I think that some questions that people argue are meaningless such as: "The meaning of life is X". I do not believe that life has the property of meaningfulness outside of subjective experience. Does the statement "X is the cause of all suffering" fit this category?

St Robert:
Do you think that salvation is the end of personal growth (person growth = path)? Do you think that you can just say magic salvation words and then shut-out life and stop growing?
The eightfold path (and other ideas like it) are just the next step, they are a beginning.
If you feel that you were instantly perfected through your faith, then there is no need to develop a "practice" in life... but in case you are not perfect then ideas like the eightfold path are very useful.