contemplans wrote: Do you ever find it strange that the Buddha speaks freely about various worlds of existence, and rebirths back millions upon billions of years, but regard something like the soul or God as a question to be set aside?
No, I don't find it strange because setting something aside does not mean it stops "existing" (if
it exists)--in the Buddha's case it gets appropriately prioritized.
Why do you suppose the Buddha appears
inconsistent when speaking of "other worlds" or "rebirth" in contrast to his teaching on impermanence, not-self and stress/suffering? Surely he was aware he'd be misunderstood.
The Buddha taught that "god" exists and thinks he created the world but didn't.
contemplans wrote:Which is a more reasonable to speak about, millions of eons of birth, or the soul and God which are held to be right here and now? What about someone who says scientific evidence proves the world started 3.5 billions years ago, but they doubt Shakespreare wrote his plays. Must of been Francis Bacon.
Depends on what you mean by "reason." Mmm, Bacon.
"You stop me, obviously with a demand for a personal explanation. 'How is it, you write, 'that you reject with such immitigable scorn the very foundation-stones of Buddhism, and yet refer disciples enthusiastically to the technique of some of its subtlest super-structures?'
-Aleister Crowley, Magick Without Tears
, Chapter XXVII: Structure of Mind Based on that of Body (Haeckel and Bertrand Russell)
"Questions of reality are too important to be left to the scientists."
-Paul Feyerbend, The Tyranny of Science
, p. 51 (Polity: 2012).