Spiny Norman wrote:We now know the earth is round. On the other 2 we have no way of knowing either way.clw_uk wrote: And when he talked about nagas, implied the world being flat with a big mountain in the middle, spirits in trees etc?
.Wut ?
Spiny Norman wrote:We now know the earth is round. On the other 2 we have no way of knowing either way.clw_uk wrote: And when he talked about nagas, implied the world being flat with a big mountain in the middle, spirits in trees etc?
.Wut ?
Spiny Norman wrote:We now know the earth is round. On the other 2 we have no way of knowing either way.clw_uk wrote: And when he talked about nagas, implied the world being flat with a big mountain in the middle, spirits in trees etc?
By being agnostic about all of it. There is really no need to adopt a position of belief / disbelief, it's all just opinion anyway.clw_uk wrote: On a serious note though, how does someone who uses a literal understanding of the other realms/beings etc in the suttas seperate the Nagas, tree spirits etc from "rebirth" and the hungry shade's, hell beings etc?
Spiny Norman wrote:By being agnostic about all of it. There is really no need to adopt a position of belief / disbelief, it's all just opinion anyway.clw_uk wrote: On a serious note though, how does someone who uses a literal understanding of the other realms/beings etc in the suttas seperate the Nagas, tree spirits etc from "rebirth" and the hungry shade's, hell beings etc?
Yes. I've had experiences I can't easily explain so I keep an open mind about it.clw_uk wrote: Out of interest spinny, do you view the "psychic powers" the same way as well?
Shaswata_Panja wrote:This is the general refrain that I get from Western Buddhism/Consensus Buddhism...It is more interested in asserting that its practice is based on atheism and thereby engendering a worldview tinged with negativity , rather than asserting that its worldview bases itself off the very rich philosophy and metaphysics provided for by the Dhamma
I respect Ajahn Chah as a teacher, but how do you know he is "realised", and how do you his teachings are authentic in relation to the suttas?Alex123 wrote: I believe that we need to take into account the psychological teaching of modern realized masters such as Ajahn Chah, etc...
Nothing, provided one doesn't get too caught up in it.Alex123 wrote:What is wrong with atheism?
yeah! but veda can transcend all the eras, right? Gotta love the fundamentalists.Shaswata_Panja wrote:Nobody.not even Buddha, can transcend his era...something along those lines was also said by the philosopher and later president Dr.Radhakrishnan----all spiritual leaders seemed to have been heavily limited by the geography and knowledge of their respective era...I find it incredulous to believe the historicity of the earlier Buddhas, given the time span involved.
visitin wrote:yeah! but veda can transcend all the eras, right? Gotta love the fundamentalists.Shaswata_Panja wrote:Nobody.not even Buddha, can transcend his era...something along those lines was also said by the philosopher and later president Dr.Radhakrishnan----all spiritual leaders seemed to have been heavily limited by the geography and knowledge of their respective era...I find it incredulous to believe the historicity of the earlier Buddhas, given the time span involved.
Well, anyone who sees other religions as a threat to his own religion, is a fundamentalist. Hindus are no exception.Shaswata_Panja wrote:and as if people who believe in the Vedas are fundementalists...
visitin wrote:Well, anyone who sees other religions as a threat to his own religion, is a fundamentalist. Hindus are no exception.Shaswata_Panja wrote:and as if people who believe in the Vedas are fundementalists...
tiltbillings wrote:That is the usual Hindu nationalism cant. The history of the time of the Buddha is richer and more interesting and more difficult than what is claimed here. The Hinduism that arose after the death of the Buddha certainly adopted and adapted quite a bit from the Buddha's teachings, but there is also very much a history of working against Buddhism.Shaswata_Panja wrote:Hindu societies promoted Mahavira,Ajita Kesakambali,Purana Kassapa,Pakhudha Kaccayana,Sanjaya Belathhaputta,Makkhali Gosala and Gautama Buddha...whereas Jewish society killed religious innovators (Jesus), Hindu society protected them
Least insecure? That "least insecurity" certainly became manifest during the struggle for independence, much to Gandhi's horror and sorrow.Hindus are least insecure, therefore they donot proselytize,,cant say that for other religions....you are trying to create a fight where there is none
That is the usual Hindu nationalism cant. The history of the time of the Buddha is richer and more interesting and more difficult than what is claimed here. The Hinduism that arose after the death of the Buddha certainly adopted and adapted quite a bit from the Buddha's teachings, but there is also very much a history of working against Buddhism.Shaswata_Panja wrote:Hindu societies promoted Mahavira,Ajita Kesakambali,Purana Kassapa,Pakhudha Kaccayana,Sanjaya Belathhaputta,Makkhali Gosala and Gautama Buddha...whereas Jewish society killed religious innovators (Jesus), Hindu society protected them
Least insecure? That "least insecurity" certainly became manifest during the struggle for independence, much to Gandhi's horror and sorrow.Hindus are least insecure, therefore they donot proselytize,,cant say that for other religions....you are trying to create a fight where there is none