THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE
-
In considering whether Buddhism is a philosophy or not, one must look at its origin. Prince Siddhartha was ‘troubled’ by the four sights and he left everything behind to find the meaning of existence. He had a good life, sheltered from all the miseries of the real world. So what he saw must be so terrible and shocking as to stir him to do something quite drastic – giving up everything. Though I don’t live at the time of Prince Siddhartha, I would compare the palace environment like Singapore today and outside the palace is like the worst of Third World. To me, the prince was looking at what irks this world. When he sat under the bodhi tree in deep meditation, he was actually contemplating an issue which he spent 6 fruitless years searching in the wilderness, living with ascetics (who were supposedly full of spirituality), learning from Brahmin high priests and indulging in many debates and intellectual discourses. So, he was contemplating, deep in thoughts. Wasn’t he theorising something? He couldn’t be observing anything with his eyes closed and in solitude. Neither was he experiencing anything. Nor did he received any message or vision from any devas or Brahma. Indeed, he was thinking, postulating, positing a ‘problem’ on ‘why life sucks?’ And in that state he found the ‘Truth’. And a way out of ‘life sucks’.
So, Buddhism did begin as a philosophy when the Buddha went to look for his old companions. He was so delighted to have found the ‘Truth’ and wanted to share with the ascetics. For the next 45 years, he taught the ‘Truth’ and developed precepts, moral values, existential insights, spiritual practices through discussions with his disciples, interactions with laypeople and Kings, answering questions, facing social problems, debating with people of other beliefs, sceptics and intellectuals. The resultant teachings or dharma encompasses all these challenges, issues and experience (those familiar with the suttas should know). And the sole purpose of Buddha’s ministry and efforts were directed at deliverance or end of dukkha. In so doing, the teachings or dharma are basically instructions that must be put to practice in order to achieve results. This is common sense.
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
In considering whether Buddhism is a philosophy or not, one must look at its origin. Prince Siddhartha was ‘troubled’ by the four sights and he left everything behind to find the meaning of existence. He had a good life, sheltered from all the miseries of the real world. So what he saw must be so terrible and shocking as to stir him to do something quite drastic – giving up everything. Though I don’t live at the time of Prince Siddhartha, I would compare the palace environment like Singapore today and outside the palace is like the worst of Third World. To me, the prince was looking at what irks this world. When he sat under the bodhi tree in deep meditation, he was actually contemplating an issue which he spent 6 fruitless years searching in the wilderness, living with ascetics (who were supposedly full of spirituality), learning from Brahmin high priests and indulging in many debates and intellectual discourses. So, he was contemplating, deep in thoughts. Wasn’t he theorising something? He couldn’t be observing anything with his eyes closed and in solitude. Neither was he experiencing anything. Nor did he received any message or vision from any devas or Brahma. Indeed, he was thinking, postulating, positing a ‘problem’ on ‘why life sucks?’ And in that state he found the ‘Truth’. And a way out of ‘life sucks’.
So, Buddhism did begin as a philosophy when the Buddha went to look for his old companions. He was so delighted to have found the ‘Truth’ and wanted to share with the ascetics. For the next 45 years, he taught the ‘Truth’ and developed precepts, moral values, existential insights, spiritual practices through discussions with his disciples, interactions with laypeople and Kings, answering questions, facing social problems, debating with people of other beliefs, sceptics and intellectuals. The resultant teachings or dharma encompasses all these challenges, issues and experience (those familiar with the suttas should know). And the sole purpose of Buddha’s ministry and efforts were directed at deliverance or end of dukkha. In so doing, the teachings or dharma are basically instructions that must be put to practice in order to achieve results. This is common sense.
Truth is truth. People can regard Buddhism as philosophy or religion, it does not affect the truth.
-
wisdom, knowledge, nature and cause of the universe, reality and existence...has never had any conclusions...the more we find it, there are even more to know that makes truth afar....
the more attachments to know or catch the nirvana..is itself an attachment which obstructs the attainment of nirvana...
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Truth is truth. People can regard Buddhism as philosophy or religion, it does not affect the truth.
Your comment is paradoxical because I can put it this way: Lie is lie. People can regard Buddhism as philosophy or religion. It does not affect the lie.
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
Your comment is paradoxical because I can put it this way: Lie is lie. People can regard Buddhism as philosophy or religion. It does not affect the lie.
Can't see the link... If you are really disturbed by the term religion or philosophy, does that means you are "framed" in the words itself? I thought words are just fingers pointing the moon (Dharma)... Got link? -
This thread is "THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE". In a debate, the first thing is to define “religion” and to establish the parameters. Then, expound on what “true” religion is, supported by logical and sensible arguments, proofs or otherwise.
It is no brainer to ask religious adherents whether their religion is true or not. Would a Christian say his religion is not true? In this forum, would he say Christianity is not true?
Perhaps, the correct approach might be this: A religion has many elements, one of which is the belief in one or more supernatural or divine being(s) that has/have control over our present and next lives. That supernatural being whatever it is called (god/God/Allah/Jehovah/Vishnu/Brahma/Tao) cannot be seen, touched, tasted, or smelt. So, is this supernatural/divine being real? It is real provided there is evident and proof and these proofs cannot be debunked, challenged or even doubted. It also has to be universal.
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
In considering whether Buddhism is a philosophy or not, one must look at its origin. Prince Siddhartha was ‘troubled’ by the four sights and he left everything behind to find the meaning of existence. He had a good life, sheltered from all the miseries of the real world. So what he saw must be so terrible and shocking as to stir him to do something quite drastic – giving up everything. Though I don’t live at the time of Prince Siddhartha, I would compare the palace environment like Singapore today and outside the palace is like the worst of Third World. To me, the prince was looking at what irks this world. When he sat under the bodhi tree in deep meditation, he was actually contemplating an issue which he spent 6 fruitless years searching in the wilderness, living with ascetics (who were supposedly full of spirituality), learning from Brahmin high priests and indulging in many debates and intellectual discourses. So, he was contemplating, deep in thoughts. Wasn’t he theorising something? He couldn’t be observing anything with his eyes closed and in solitude. Neither was he experiencing anything. Nor did he received any message or vision from any devas or Brahma. Indeed, he was thinking, postulating, positing a ‘problem’ on ‘why life sucks?’ And in that state he found the ‘Truth’. And a way out of ‘life sucks’.
So, Buddhism did begin as a philosophy when the Buddha went to look for his old companions. He was so delighted to have found the ‘Truth’ and wanted to share with the ascetics. For the next 45 years, he taught the ‘Truth’ and developed precepts, moral values, existential insights, spiritual practices through discussions with his disciples, interactions with laypeople and Kings, answering questions, facing social problems, debating with people of other beliefs, sceptics and intellectuals. The resultant teachings or dharma encompasses all these challenges, issues and experience (those familiar with the suttas should know). And the sole purpose of Buddha’s ministry and efforts were directed at deliverance or end of dukkha. In so doing, the teachings or dharma are basically instructions that must be put to practice in order to achieve results. This is common sense.
//”This is arrived at by theorising in deep contemplation. It did not come about by some practice or experience.”//
//”When he sat under the bodhi tree in deep meditation, he was actually contemplating an issue which he spent 6 fruitless years searching in the wilderness, living with ascetics (who were supposedly full of spirituality), learning from Brahmin high priests and indulging in many debates and intellectual discourses. So, he was contemplating, deep in thoughts. Wasn’t he theorising something? He couldn’t be observing anything with his eyes closed and in solitude. Neither was he experiencing anything.”//
The practice of meditation does not just involved contemplating, deep in thoughts only. Any Tom, Dick and Harry would be able to understand the simple phase that ‘Life is Suffering.’ How far they are prepared to believe in it is another issue. The unsatisfactory nature of life itself has to experience first before it can be fully realized and understood. The practice of meditation is used by the Buddhists to actually experience this suffering itself.
Prince Siddhartha may be moved by the four sights and when on to find the meaning of existent. He did not theorize about the meaning of existence. He experiences the 1st Noble Truth himself and then spread those experiences in words to his disciples. It does not need any of our senses to experience suffering itself. Anyone who has been practicing meditation for some years will be able to tell you it is so.
//(Dependent Origination), it was about ‘old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair’//.
By the way, Dependent Origination is no just about the above. It is about moral causation and is used to explain the Doctrine of no-self in the Theravada tradition. It takes on a different interpretation by the Mahayanists in its explanation of the Doctrine of Emptiness.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Can't see the link... If you are really disturbed by the term religion or philosophy, does that means you are "framed" in the words itself? I thought words are just fingers pointing the moon (Dharma)... Got link?hahaha, I know the dhamma about finger and signpost pointing to something. Let's not get pedantic. I have said: "Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion." Isn't it clear that I made the distinction? I have also provided the meaning of philosophy, so I am not framed nor disturbed. No one has defined religion here in this thread, so what is religion to you? You are making a no brainer statement: truth is truth. Isn't it the same as 'lie is lie'? Don't you think a lie is a lie??
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
//”This is arrived at by theorising in deep contemplation. It did not come about by some practice or experience.”//
//”When he sat under the bodhi tree in deep meditation, he was actually contemplating an issue which he spent 6 fruitless years searching in the wilderness, living with ascetics (who were supposedly full of spirituality), learning from Brahmin high priests and indulging in many debates and intellectual discourses. So, he was contemplating, deep in thoughts. Wasn’t he theorising something? He couldn’t be observing anything with his eyes closed and in solitude. Neither was he experiencing anything.”//
The practice of meditation does not just involved contemplating, deep in thoughts only. Any Tom, Dick and Harry would be able to understand the simple phase that ‘Life is Suffering.’ How far they are prepared to believe in it is another issue. The unsatisfactory nature of life itself has to experience first before it can be fully realized and understood. The practice of meditation is used by the Buddhists to actually experience this suffering itself.
Prince Siddhartha may be moved by the four sights and when on to find the meaning of existent. He did not theorize about the meaning of existence. He experiences the 1st Noble Truth himself and then spread those experiences in words to his disciples. It does not need any of our senses to experience suffering itself. Anyone who has been practicing meditation for some years will be able to tell you it is so.
//(Dependent Origination), it was about ‘old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair’//.
By the way, Dependent Origination is no just about the above. It is about moral causation and is used to explain the Doctrine of no-self in the Theravada tradition. It takes on a different interpretation by the Mahayanists in its explanation of the Doctrine of Emptiness.
[Any Tom, Dick and Harry would be able to understand the simple phase that ‘Life is Suffering.’] – Disagree, if so why was Siddartha hesitant to teach the ascetics initially? Also, many people disagree with ‘Life is Suffering’ or didn’t understand what is dukkha.
[The practice of meditation is used by the Buddhists to actually experience this suffering itself.] – Disagree, we experience dukkha any moment but we may not consciously acknowledge it. If dukkha is only experienced during meditation, then it is better not to meditate!!
[He experiences the 1st Noble Truth himself and then spread those experiences in words to his disciples.] – Disagree, Siddartha realised that ‘Life is Suffering’ and this is the culmination of 6 years of wandering to find the meaning of existence. He already saw suffering when he ventured out of the palace! Buddha (awakened one) after he formulated the 4NT wanted to share his discovery with the companions he abandoned but was concerned whether they could understand. The 4NT as you put it is simple but to understand is not that simple. Otherwise, the Buddha would not have to spend 45 years teaching and presenting the 4NT by various doctrines, metaphors, stories, and analogies.
[It does not need any of our senses to experience suffering itself. Anyone who has been practicing meditation for some years will be able to tell you it is so.] This is a serious misunderstanding: if we don’t need senses (six sense bases), then Dependent Origination would have a missing link! Who is anyone practising meditation can tell? Need to verify your source.
May I respectfully ask where you learned the dharma and who is your teacher?
-
If I had to choose between philosophy and science to describe dharma, I choose science because we get to hands on, experience and see things for ourselves rather than just theorizing about things. But dharna is so deeply experiential that even science fails as analogy.
-
The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away. Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine. - Majjhima Nikaya, 72
-
By the way there is a difference between dukkha as a dharma seal and as an affliction. As a dharma seal, all phenomena are unsatisfactory and impermanent and without self. As an affliction, it is the mental suffering caused by clinging and craving and identifying. The latter can be removed through enlightenment. The dharma seal cannot be removed as it is simply the nature of all transient phenomena to be unsatisfactory. It is a truth that exhibits every moment but only realized or discovered through meditation, along with the subtle impermanence and lack of self.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Can't see the link... If you are really disturbed by the term religion or philosophy, does that means you are "framed" in the words itself? I thought words are just fingers pointing the moon (Dharma)... Got link?
More or less as there is simply only loving-kindness assisted. And only this lovely existence that the bondage will be everlasting in an utmost favourable experience of happening.....as a matter of fact, the Sutrangama Sutra did not state that it is Buddhism, it stated your mind. For instance, if a man who in his last breath of its life, repented and purified, he can attain perfect one or buddha so to speak. But he ought to aware of he nature perfect bliss
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
I don't understand 'medicine may be different for different sick people'. A doctor’s role is to prescribe the most effective medication for the sick. Therefore, what works for one patient may not work for another. This example is a poor illustration of what you are trying to say (if I get it correctly) that different Buddhist traditions are meant for different Buddhists but they are the same because the 'Four Noble Truths' is the same for all.
If the 'Four Noble Truths' is not philosophy then what is it?
k, ya, sorry, i check the definition again for philosophy and found 2 in wiki. my idea of philosophy is more of the latter than the former.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhilosophyA philosophy is a group of ideas, worked out by a philosopher (someone who has studied ways of thinking about the world). The ideas in philosophy are abstract, which means that they are "things that cannot be touched." http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
i just thought that the 4NT,
The First Noble Truth is the effect of suffering.
The Second Noble Truth is the cause of suffering.
The Third Noble Truth is the effect of the end of suffering.
The Fourth Noble Truth is the cause of the end of suffering.is more practical; systematic or even "scientific" than "abstract" or merely a way of thinking as in philosophy, that's all. that's a problem, find the cause of problem and find a solution to solve the problem. pretty simple as that.
yes, a doctor’s role(like the Buddha) is to prescribe the most effective medication for the sick. Therefore, what works for one patient may not work for another. the one sickness of suffering is same for all. u see it as a poor illustration, but i see it as a skillful mean, hence we have the saying of 84000 method/door. example an illiterate person can also use other form of method(like precept/pureland school) to practice buddhism and still acheive enlightenment. not necessary that one must be well educated to study the sutra word by word. All method also does not leave the criteria of the Eightfold Path.
/\
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
[Any Tom, Dick and Harry would be able to understand the simple phase that ‘Life is Suffering.’] – Disagree, if so why was Siddartha hesitant to teach the ascetics initially? Also, many people disagree with ‘Life is Suffering’ or didn’t understand what is dukkha.
[The practice of meditation is used by the Buddhists to actually experience this suffering itself.] – Disagree, we experience dukkha any moment but we may not consciously acknowledge it. If dukkha is only experienced during meditation, then it is better not to meditate!!
[He experiences the 1st Noble Truth himself and then spread those experiences in words to his disciples.] – Disagree, Siddartha realised that ‘Life is Suffering’ and this is the culmination of 6 years of wandering to find the meaning of existence. He already saw suffering when he ventured out of the palace! Buddha (awakened one) after he formulated the 4NT wanted to share his discovery with the companions he abandoned but was concerned whether they could understand. The 4NT as you put it is simple but to understand is not that simple. Otherwise, the Buddha would not have to spend 45 years teaching and presenting the 4NT by various doctrines, metaphors, stories, and analogies.
[It does not need any of our senses to experience suffering itself. Anyone who has been practicing meditation for some years will be able to tell you it is so.] This is a serious misunderstanding: if we don’t need senses (six sense bases), then Dependent Origination would have a missing link! Who is anyone practising meditation can tell? Need to verify your source.
May I respectfully ask where you learned the dharma and who is your teacher?
//Disagree, if so why was Siddartha hesitant to teach the ascetics initially? Also, many people disagree with ‘Life is Suffering’ or didn’t understand what is dukkha//
He hesitated because such an experience he felt may be too profound for other to understand, which to date it seem many still do not quite understand it as well. That is my personal take.
//Disagree, we experience dukkha any moment but we may not consciously acknowledge it. If dukkha is only experienced during meditation, then it is better not to meditate!!//
You may have misunderstood what I mean when I said ‘The practice of meditation is used by the Buddhists to actually experience this suffering itself.’
I have just posted a write up titled – ‘Calming Thoughts & Discomfort in Meditation’. Do have a quick read on it first.
//This is a serious misunderstanding: if we don’t need senses (six sense bases), then Dependent Origination would have a missing link! Who is anyone practising meditation can tell? Need to verify your source//
Dependent Origination has nothing to do with the missing link to our six senses. It is one of the most important Buddhist tenets in explaining the doctrine of no-self and Emptiness. Unless you literally meant to imply that we need our senses for our sources of knowledge.
As for my source of the dharma, it is through reading and listening to others’ take on the religion over a period of more than 25 years. Of course, all these information and knowledge would amount to just words if not put into practices. It will just make a person feel so ‘full of himself’ as he would think that has learned and know them all and there is nothing more to learn.
I have no teacher.
I believe AEN above comments would clarify many of your points too.
I have no wish to continue this discussion any further as there will be no end to it.
-
Aik TC, your efforts at learning and sharing is applaudable. Perhaps if you have practiced the direct path to self-realization, simply asking yourself Who am I? You will attain realize the luminous essence of mind by now. It took me less than two years, and a lot shorter for many others. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html
-
"You have a problem understanding English and you put words in my mouth. That is despicable! Which part of this sentence: "Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion." do you have a problem?"
Yay! Ad hominem... Problem? No. You evading answering? Yes. To put it in simpler terms, you claimed Buddhism began as philosophy and became a religion, I asked you to proof.
"This thread may be about religion - so what? Is there such a thing as true religion? Define true religion please!"
You seemed to be implying religions are wrong. If your brand of Buddhism is a philosophy then make a new thread about the true philosophy if you like. Unlike you, I have many questions, not answers.
"If you have no idea why Siddharta Gotama left the palace, then I suggest you do Google search. And if you know the answers why accused me of pretending? You are pretentious!"
You don't understand the burden of proof, do you? Another attempt pretending to know the answers... Btw, I never claimed or implied that I have answers. Oh, nice ad hominem...
P.S: Correct me if I'm wrong, truth and lie is not to be considered each a singularity. They have to coexist to be meaningful. Enlightenment or absolute truths, however, are independent.
Aik TC is wise....
-
-
AEN, I have saved your site address. There is a great deal of information available on it and I will certainly have to spend some time to go through it. Thanks for the link and your suggestion.
-
TrueReppuzan:
**atheists, humanists, skcetpical minded and scienific minded, come and post in my
forum.Care to provide the links to your forum????
HAHHAHAHHAHHAHAH.................
hweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....................
Pls roll out the RED CARPET for SUSHISM.
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
hahaha, I know the dhamma about finger and signpost pointing to something. Let's not get pedantic. I have said: "Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion." Isn't it clear that I made the distinction? I have also provided the meaning of philosophy, so I am not framed nor disturbed. No one has defined religion here in this thread, so what is religion to you? You are making a no brainer statement: truth is truth. Isn't it the same as 'lie is lie'? Don't you think a lie is a lie??
Can I borrow social science definition of religion?Clifford James Geertz, an American anthropologist who has defined religion in a more universal way. He proposes (1) a system of symbols which act to (2) establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (Kunin, Miles-Watson, 2006, p.180).
But... I still don't understand why "lie" is link to religion...
-
From the description of his forum it sounds like truerepuzzan is an atheist than a muslim. But that is just from the short description alone.
-
I understand why many regarded Buddhism as not a ‘philosophy to begin with’. Allow me to reiterate again: Buddhism began as a philosophy when I looked at its origin. How Buddhism evolved and the subsequent developments, interpretations and degeneration is another matter. If I take a hard look at Buddhism today, I would certainly call it a religion because of its many beliefs, rituals, mysticism, fairy tales, esotericism, reverence, worship, offering, and even mysteries.
Prince Siddhartha was certainly delving on down-to-earth issues and not on some spirituality or higher knowledge or high-end ‘aero’ plane or esoteric experience. That down-to-earth issues are also something present today and which many of us would philosophise about – why there is aging, sickness and death? As a matter of fact, our daily to and fro is all about endeavours to overcome or mitigate these three aspects on top of many other social ills, problems and challenges. If I can put Buddhism into a nutshell and strip it off its other shelves, it is about how to live the clean and good life. In this respect, it is not different from many other philosophies and teachings of many great sages, including my late grandmother!
While I do agree that theory without practice is of little use and emphasis should be on practice rather than just knowledge and no application, I cannot see why this emphasis should disqualify Buddhism as a ‘philosophy to begin with’. Let say you are not a Buddhist by inheritance (hand-down faith) or blind faith (those who embraced Buddhism by just following) and you do not know its teachings, practices, and so forth but you want to be a ‘Buddhist’. Would you just walk into a Buddhist temple and say I want to be a Buddhist, take Refuge and viola! you’re a Buddhist? If so, what motivates you? Is it the knowledge, the practices or the experience? You have none of these. Or is it the external regalia, flags, chants, gongs, suttas, monks, nuns, golden temples, tooth relics? Or do you look at its philosophy - the founder's thoughts?
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
//Disagree, if so why was Siddartha hesitant to teach the ascetics initially? Also, many people disagree with ‘Life is Suffering’ or didn’t understand what is dukkha//
He hesitated because such an experience he felt may be too profound for other to understand, which to date it seem many still do not quite understand it as well. That is my personal take.
//Disagree, we experience dukkha any moment but we may not consciously acknowledge it. If dukkha is only experienced during meditation, then it is better not to meditate!!//
You may have misunderstood what I mean when I said ‘The practice of meditation is used by the Buddhists to actually experience this suffering itself.’
I have just posted a write up titled – ‘Calming Thoughts & Discomfort in Meditation’. Do have a quick read on it first.
//This is a serious misunderstanding: if we don’t need senses (six sense bases), then Dependent Origination would have a missing link! Who is anyone practising meditation can tell? Need to verify your source//
Dependent Origination has nothing to do with the missing link to our six senses. It is one of the most important Buddhist tenets in explaining the doctrine of no-self and Emptiness. Unless you literally meant to imply that we need our senses for our sources of knowledge.
As for my source of the dharma, it is through reading and listening to others’ take on the religion over a period of more than 25 years. Of course, all these information and knowledge would amount to just words if not put into practices. It will just make a person feel so ‘full of himself’ as he would think that has learned and know them all and there is nothing more to learn.
I have no teacher.
I believe AEN above comments would clarify many of your points too.
I have no wish to continue this discussion any further as there will be no end to it.
//This is a serious misunderstanding: if we don’t need senses (six sense bases), then Dependent Origination would have a missing link! Who is anyone practising meditation can tell? Need to verify your source//
Dependent Origination has nothing to do with the missing link to our six senses. It is one of the most important Buddhist tenets in explaining the doctrine of no-self and Emptiness. Unless you literally meant to imply that we need our senses for our sources of knowledge.
[You are so focused on Emptiness that you missed the gist of my earlier reply - that Ayatana (six sense bases) is part of DO and therefore integral to learning and feeling. I don't how you acquire knowledge without the senses - please explain.] //Of course, all these information and knowledge would amount to just words if not put into practices.//
[What exactly did you put into practice?].
//I have no wish to continue this discussion any further as there will be no end to it.//
[This discussion is dukkha to you?]
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"You have a problem understanding English and you put words in my mouth. That is despicable! Which part of this sentence: "Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion." do you have a problem?"
Yay! Ad hominem... Problem? No. You evading answering? Yes. To put it in simpler terms, you claimed Buddhism began as philosophy and became a religion, I asked you to proof.
"This thread may be about religion - so what? Is there such a thing as true religion? Define true religion please!"
You seemed to be implying religions are wrong. If your brand of Buddhism is a philosophy then make a new thread about the true philosophy if you like. Unlike you, I have many questions, not answers.
"If you have no idea why Siddharta Gotama left the palace, then I suggest you do
Google search. And if you know the answers why accused me of pretending? You are pretentious!"
You don't understand the burden of proof, do you? Another attempt pretending to know the answers... Btw, I never claimed or implied that I have answers. Oh, nice ad hominem...
P.S: Correct me if I'm wrong, truth and lie is not to be considered each a singularity. They have to coexist to be meaningful. Enlightenment or absolute truths, however, are independent.
Aik TC is wise....
"This thread may be about religion - so what? Is there such a thing as true religion? Define true religion please!"
You seemed to be implying religions are wrong. If your brand of Buddhism is a philosophy then make a new thread about the true philosophy if you like. Unlike you, I have many questions, not answers.
[You have not define true religion, and again you put words into my mouth "You seemed to be implying religions are wrong".]
//Aik TC is wise....//
[Is this to impress me? Or to support your inability to understand my posting?]