November 18, 2019 at 9:33 pm #313588
How so? As I have shown its not like other religions, it proves itself through argument. Like the link that I can’t find. It felt like definite proof of Buddhism being true, because it said if it wasn’t then it’s opposite would be working for us.November 24, 2019 at 8:44 pm #314830
PLus I find it hard to contest the arguments that they make.November 27, 2019 at 4:15 pm #314923
There is also the claim that Buddhism itself is a scientific religion because Buddha didn’t just take this on faith but conducted analysis and tested hypothesis on the matter.November 27, 2019 at 5:04 pm #314929LaustenKeymaster
You’ve said the thing about Buddhism being scientific many times now Xian. Please refrain from repetitious posting. We want people to come to CFI and find discussion of issues. If regular users have addressed your points, a new user should be able to find that, and they can add to the conversation if they want. If you post the same thing over and over, a new user might not see that your point was addressed somewhere else. The overall sense of the forum becomes confused. I have the ability to delete posts and I will use it if you continue.
This includes putting a link and simply saying, “I can’t contest this”. Be specific about what has convinced you of what.November 27, 2019 at 6:37 pm #314932
The Buddha understood the operations of the mind in precise detail, explaining how desire, hatred, and ignorance motivate actions that eventually result in all manner of physical and mental pain, and he set forth the practice of meditation to bring the chattering mind and the unruly emotions under control in order to reach a state of serenity. But beyond this, he analyzed the myriad physical and mental constituents that together are called the person, finding among them nothing that lasts longer than an instant. Thus, he discovered, through his analysis, that there is no self, that there is no soul, that what we call the person is but a psychophysical process, and that the realization of this fundamental truth results in a certain liberation.
It’s mostly the above statement and remarks about the self, calling it just a process. I don’t know it just makes it seem like we aren’t solid. But part of me can’t help but feel like this interpretation is wrong, that calling it a bunch of parts isn’t accurate. I know that our mental aspects don’t last longer than an instant but he didn’t know about the subconscious and how much of our thinking isn’t known to us. Also what we call the self is more like the average of some behaviors, like how people usually respond to things. Sure our liking of something is only for an instant, but it does repeat if we do it again. I think he had a false view of the self. Also the “precise detail” seems false, especially about desire. To me Buddhism more creates another reality than reveals one, but I find it hard to convince people who believe in it otherwise. But I guess the part that, in spite of all that, gets me is the fleeting nature of our feelings and thoughts. How do we determine a self out of that?November 27, 2019 at 8:07 pm #314936
In addition to what they mention about nothing being “solid” because things are always in a state of flux and change. Like how the body appears to be a “solid” entity but it’s really just a collection of processes that are always changes. Some of them even suggest that nouns are illusory because it suggests that something is permanent and unchanging.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.