kirk5a wrote:ancientbuddhism wrote:
To make an assertion by fiat, even backed up by the early texts as you wish (I can read a book too), still amounts to the same thing; it is an empty claim.
You made an empty claim, not those of us who responded to you.
I realize that these are issues for some, hence the prejudicial fallacies. Re-read my comments
here &
here; I have made no claim. In the second post I did ask a question.
“Myth of rebirth in the early texts notwithstanding”
Which is to say ‘lets set aside what we cannot demonstrate in order to consider...’ (
not for nothin’ but – rebirth fits exactly the definition of what a myth is)
“do the teachings of the Buddha stand or fail based on whether one believes in what cannot be reached by living experience?”
‘whether’ includes both yours
et al, textual and personal assumptions on faith & one who chooses to work with what can be known directly; ascertainable by the faculties one has (unless you have an extra
khandha in your pocket, this means all of us).
“With the myth of rebirth aside I do not see a mere system of ethics, mere petty morality, but a way of living with an analysis of experience which can be put into practice with evident progression.”
And this would qualify the question by what the questioner suggests is universally workable, that is, you can believe in rebirth and practice, another can be agnostic on rebirth and practice; all without losing what is essentially the aim of the Buddha's teaching.