Ontheway wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:31 am
Quite interesting.
I think, to him, Rebirth idea is a dead man's joke.
This seems to be based around three theses. First, that whereas Christianity and Islam are dogmatic and brook no debate, Buddhism favours debate. Second, that the purpose of this Buddhist debate is to bring adherents to a position where they are willing to meditate and experience jhāna. Third, that jhāna and other experiences discussed in the canon are necessarily hallucinatory.
All of these seem to be wrong and easily dismissed, if it were worth it.
This guy doesn't even come near to answering the question he is posed. It's possible the Buddha was a prophet, because God loses the right to punish people if he doesn't send them prophets, except that he doesn't, because he's God. So we need to be open to the idea that others such as the Buddha were prophets. Even if they are mistranslated.
Once a critique of religious thought is applied all religions are swept away, be they theistic or non-theistic. Very economic. No secondary (comparative) thoughts needed.
Ontheway wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:31 am
Quite interesting.
I think, to him, Rebirth idea is a dead man's joke.
Eisel used to be a member here at DhammaWheel but I can't remember the name he used. He's very bright intellectually and has a flair with languages, including Pali.
SteRo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 10:35 am
Once a critique of religious thought is applied all religions are swept away, be they theistic or non-theistic. Very economic. No secondary (comparative) thoughts needed.
Let's try this out. Give us a critique of religious thought, and we'll see if religion is swept away.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 9:04 am
This seems to be based around three theses. First, that whereas Christianity and Islam are dogmatic and brook no debate, Buddhism favours debate. Second, that the purpose of this Buddhist debate is to bring adherents to a position where they are willing to meditate and experience jhāna. Third, that jhāna and other experiences discussed in the canon are necessarily hallucinatory.
All of these seem to be wrong and easily dismissed, if it were worth it.
I have sympathy with some of the points he raised. The relationship between understanding and tranquility in Buddhism is an interesting one. The Buddha encouraged those who depend on study and those who depend on meditation not to criticize each other. Each has their own justification it seems. What is in the world has to be said clearly. What is outside the world one is better be silent about it. Both are driven by whether there is anything beyond appearances. And if there is, can it be conveyed or should it be known experimentally.
Language appears to be the only (or most accessible) tool where ideas can be conveyed. There seems to be little agreement on what Buddhist meditation is, its relationship to insight, and why its necessary if what is known can be conveyed clearly. I don't think that he is justified in dismissing the Jhanas as hallucinatory, but his critique can be useful in highlighting the ambiguities associated with Buddhist meditation. Scholars are interested in what can be said clearly. This is their relationship to the truth, it seems.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
SteRo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 10:35 am
Once a critique of religious thought is applied all religions are swept away, be they theistic or non-theistic. Very economic. No secondary (comparative) thoughts needed.
Let's try this out. Give us a critique of religious thought, and we'll see if religion is swept away.
You misunderstood. The "critique of religious thought" referred to cannot be transmitted to or demonstrated for others. It's an individual capacity that is either present from the outset or evolves subliminally until it pops up.
SteRo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 10:35 am
Once a critique of religious thought is applied all religions are swept away, be they theistic or non-theistic. Very economic. No secondary (comparative) thoughts needed.
Let's try this out. Give us a critique of religious thought, and we'll see if religion is swept away.
You misunderstood. The "critique of religious thought" referred to cannot be transmitted to or demonstrated for others. It's an individual capacity that is either present from the outset or evolves subliminally until it pops up.
So if a person has a "critique of religious thought", then they don't believe in religious stuff?
SteRo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 10:35 am
Once a critique of religious thought is applied all religions are swept away, be they theistic or non-theistic. Very economic. No secondary (comparative) thoughts needed.
Let's try this out. Give us a critique of religious thought, and we'll see if religion is swept away.
You misunderstood. The "critique of religious thought" referred to cannot be transmitted to or demonstrated for others. It's an individual capacity that is either present from the outset or evolves subliminally until it pops up.
Sounds like a spiritual experience gone wrong or magical mumbo jumbo... are you sure it sweeps away all religions... sounds like you're creating a new one.
This 'individual capacity' that cannot be transmitted or demonstrated to others sounds a bit like 'gods grace' in Christianity.
Let's try this out. Give us a critique of religious thought, and we'll see if religion is swept away.
You misunderstood. The "critique of religious thought" referred to cannot be transmitted to or demonstrated for others. It's an individual capacity that is either present from the outset or evolves subliminally until it pops up.
So if a person has a "critique of religious thought", then they don't believe in religious stuff?
Profound. Keep 'em coming.
"don't believe in religious stuff" may have a very trivial connotation but "all religions being swept away" is different. You won't understand this difference because you obviously don't have the capacity in question. So yes, to you it may appear to be just "don't believe in religious stuff".
You misunderstood. The "critique of religious thought" referred to cannot be transmitted to or demonstrated for others. It's an individual capacity that is either present from the outset or evolves subliminally until it pops up.
So if a person has a "critique of religious thought", then they don't believe in religious stuff?
Profound. Keep 'em coming.
"don't believe in religious stuff" may have a very trivial connotation but "all religions being swept away" is different. You won't understand this difference because you obviously don't have the capacity in question. So yes, to you it may appear to be just "don't believe in religious stuff".
I do however have the capacity to ask questions to see whether what is being claimed is anything more than a portentous-sounding tautology. So what do you mean by the phrase "all religions being swept away"?
One point is that nobody knows "rebirth" is true or not, and Buddhism cannot make affirmative statement about it. To that, I can't directly prove that there is "rebirth" like how I prove that 1+1=2, I just need to take it on faith.
According to Bible, Buddhism is satanic. He even said Buddhism is a false religion from the pit of Hell in the beginning of the video. He also said "every single one of them (Buddhist) will go to Hell if they don't repent."
Ontheway wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:45 am
Another video critic of Buddhism by Islam.
One point is that nobody knows "rebirth" is true or not, and Buddhism cannot make affirmative statement about it. To that, I can't directly prove that there is "rebirth" like how I prove that 1+1=2, I just need to take it on faith.
Can the muslim n christian know for certain existence of God is a factual thing ?! What then is not based on some faith ?