Debunking a Creator

[RongzomFan]

Other religions believe that everything is an illusion

 

Name one

[Simple_Jack]

I am not narrow minded. I am challenging dogma and asking questions.

 

Would you do the same if the thread was titiled "Debunking Dependent Origination"? I have a feeling you wouldn't.

[Aetherous]

Now,I'm confused -- I thought Buddhists were imaginary.

 

No, just illusory. lol

[ralis]

We do not put forth a philosophical position.

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,

nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to

level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

You have no philosophical position? That is an untenable position and a cop out. Just by stating that all life is suffering is a philosophical position. This is the kind of twisted logic that I resent.

Edited December 6, 2013 by ralis

[RongzomFan]

You have no philosophical position? That is an untenable position and a cop out. Just by stating that all life is suffering is a philosophical position. This is the kind of twisted logic that I resent.

 

All philosophical positions require the 2 root views of existence and nonexistence.

[Simple_Jack]

The reason is the incessant preaching and condemnation of others. Namely that others are ignorant/immature to even allow the special secret teachings to be corrupted on low-lifes. I resent that arrogant fundamentalist attitude.

 

I didn't say anything about Buddhism in particular, I just pointed out that Dharmic religions don't find the notion of a creator god as pertinent to understanding the nature of afflictions.

[RongzomFan]

I didn't say anything about Buddhism in particular, I just pointed out that Dharmic religions don't find the notion of a creator god as pertinent to understanding the nature of afflictions.

 

Thats true.

 

I am not aware of a Creator in any of the major Dharmic philosophies.

[Simple_Jack]

Also that Dharmic traditions can't narrowly be defined as a form of monotheism.

[C T]

You have no philosophical position? That is an untenable position and a cop out. Just by stating that all life is suffering is a philosophical position. This is the kind of twisted logic that I resent.

For the record, nowhere did Buddha ever said that all life is suffering. He said, "There is suffering".

 

You just plugged that in based on your own conditioned response.

[ralis]

All philosophical positions require the 2 root views of existence and nonexistence.

 

I guess if you don't exist, then philosophy does not exist either. Evasive Buddhist logic.

[ralis]

For the record, nowhere did Buddha ever said that all life is suffering. He said, "There is suffering".

 

You just plugged that in based on your own conditioned response.

 

Where is the suffering? By using the absolute term 'is' you have stated an absolute.

Edited December 6, 2013 by ralis

[RongzomFan]

Where is the suffering? By using the absolute term 'is' you have stated an absolute.

 

I think the word is unsatisfactoriness.

[Simple_Jack]

Where is the suffering? By using the absolute term 'is' you have stated an absolute.

 

Again with the e-prime? Come on, man.

[RongzomFan]

Raised Hindu, I have never yet heard one creation story.

[C T]

Now,I'm confused -- I thought Buddhists were imaginary.

Haha, funny guy.

[ralis]

Again with the e-prime? Come on, man.

 

How else can that statement be interpreted?

[RongzomFan]

dukkha translates to unsatisfactoriness

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=44lBT7_0lDwC&pg=PA122&dq=dukkha+unsatisfactoriness&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tjahUvmVDrihsATihoCgBQ&ved=0CEYQuwUwBA#v=onepage&q=dukkha%20unsatisfactoriness&f=false

Edited December 6, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Simple_Jack]

How else can that statement be interpreted?

 

Interpreted how?

[ralis]

Again with the e-prime? Come on, man.

 

Maybe that will be a reminder to be clearer in this discourse. Stop generalizing.

[ralis]

Interpreted how?

 

To answer a question with a question will not work with me.

[RongzomFan]

The prime philosophy of Hinduism, Samkhya, has no Creator as far as I know.

 

Samkhya forms the basis of the Saiva, Vaishnava and Sakti tantras.

[Simple_Jack]

Maybe that will be a reminder to be clearer in this discourse. Stop generalizing.

 

Stop trying to narrowly confine Buddhist discourse within the parameters of e-prime.

[RongzomFan]

Stop trying to narrowly confine Buddhist discourse within the parameters of e-prime.

 

OPTIMUS PRIME

 

Edited December 6, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Simple_Jack]

Maybe that will be a reminder to be clearer in this discourse. Stop generalizing.

 

How do you want me to interpret that statement to you?

[ralis]

Stop trying to narrowly confine Buddhist discourse within the parameters of e-prime.

 

Until such time that ones who engage in Buddhist discourse stop making absolute untenable evasive statements, then I will stop. What I see are poorly thought out methods for transmitting and teaching among Buddhists. If you can't handle serious questioning of your particular thought processes, then stop posting on this thread.

 

I am convinced that Buddhists in general can't handle criticism. Some of their reactions here confirm this.

Edited December 6, 2013 by ralis