To Those Who say That A Well Trained Devout Catholic

[bearly]

sir david's post does not use the word 'bias'. it seems at least that this slew of "religious" posts has brought out the bigots of the 'elite'. c'mon guys you know you are out there---i watched you prance around for years; and heard very slick versions of what you accuse the 'rednecks' of doing...............b

Ok Peter666,

Let me cover the tree refutation you gave. I will address the in order of difficulty rather than the original order.

Point 2:

I assume that we are nearly on accord here. I surely dispute your original point about lack of memorable Buddhist scinetists/mathematicians whetever. Even without researching I would doubt that no Nobel prize in hard sciences has ever been given to a Buddhist. I would expect that amongst the people exposede trained in western logic, I would expect a proportional number of buddhist, christians, muslims, etc... As there is more exposure to western logic, I expect abigger and bigger proportion of scholars than there is now, to be representative of the various religions. Conversely, you could say that there many more Buddhist scholars that happen to be Buddhis than there are Christians so. My andwer to the third point will expand a bit on that. I am no suprematicist and I hope you are not either.

Point 3:

My answer to point 2 above already give a refutation of your first stetement. I find it interesting that you use this quote from Douglas Daye and that you use Notre Dame logicians as some sort guarnteed of expertise. My experience with christian (and in particular catholic) education, was rather dismal in truth in those courses that I took regarding comparative religions. They were, in fact, quite untruthful, and as I found out later. They could no be substanttiated by looking directly at the sources. Having said that, I am a bit suspicious of any comment made about Buddhism by, however famous, a logician associated with Notre Dame University. Here I presume it is the catholic university, of which there happen to be, an associated one in the city I live in. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Having said that, I will try not to prejudge, and continue on the basis that indeed Douglas Daye understand/knows what he is talking about or, at least, has researched the subject. If that is so, then I must assume that you are quoting this out of context, and that his comments were not direcxted at Buddhism. For your, and his, altough I hope he doesn't need it, information, the Nyaaya (his spelling system, usually spelled Nyaya in latin script) is a buddhist sect that, to my knowledge is no longer extant. It is stronly rooted in Hindhuism, with the exception of overturning the believe of a god creator (shared by christian, muslims and hinddhus alike) and overturning the class system which was not very palatable at the time (about same time as JC), to the Hindu elite. In fact, it is this that is often associated with the fact that Buddhism, altough originating from India, is now a real minority there, having been "eradicated" or at least opposed by the authorities of the day as being revolutionary (which it was). Furthermore there are very few (a handful were only discovered) original texts. All scolarly work is done using translated reconstructed text (mainly from tibetan) and extrapolation from the tests of Vedic tradition. It is true that some of those texts address logic, but more so (not exclusively I admit) in terms of form which indeed still echoes in Tibetan Buddhism today as would probably be seen in travelogues or populist documentaries regarding tibetan monks. Their famous arguments which are punctuated by hitting the closed right fist in the open left palm, making a hudding/clapping sound. But this is just form, in the same way that tere exists rules and addresses for parlements or meeting in Western society. This is indeed very diffrent in content and purpose from the texts (Abhidhamma) that I refered too which are exactly what I said,at the very least an attempt at modelling the human psyche with no fault of logic, be it western or not(?). Or at least lacking the need for acrobatics required of wetern logic, to support such concept as the trinity, the dual nature of chirst, etc.. Of course, calling those mysteries does away with need for undertsanding and verification and even logic. Now you see it, now you don't. lol I challenge you to find a single statement that is illogical in the Abhidhamma, and I mean that, in accordance with western logic. You may very well dispute the truth of it but not the logic. I undertand you may not wish to "mess" with Notre Dame logicians and will address that ine my answer to the next poit. Suffice it to say I have no such qualms. Bring it on, baby [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Point 1:

This is probably your most important point and, again, unfortunately it shows a lack of knowledge about the subject matter. Worse, it does misrepresent Buddhism in a fundamental way. My explanation might get us to the point where we agree to disagree about the truthfullness of the respective positions we are supporting, but it shall not be on the basis of misrepresentation. The reason I am making the effort to reply, is just that I don't like misreprestentation, that it is an efarious act, of no benefits but rather great detriment of society. I would be as vociferously defending catholicism if someone said/posted that a well known fact was the pope kept a harem , in an inner room of the Vatican, for his exclusive benefit. In fact I would object to a number of the inferences contained in that statement. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

First of all, fundamentals principle are NOT like fundamental principles in a Christian religion. How are they not? They, of course, do not mention a god or authority. Specificall rejected as reasons to be a Buddhist, by the Buddha, are: because it is in texts, or, because he, or another master(?) said so. There is no room for authority whatever. In fact the Buddha encouraged his followers, when questionned about it, to go and listen to other teachers, to try out/prectice what they said, and if they found out it resulted in hapiness for themselves and for other, to take it on!
Secondly the Buddha never claimed to be anything but an ordinary man. What he achieved, is achievable by anyone (given efort, of course). His achievement can be defined as the elimination of suffering, by the eradication, with his psyche, of greed, hate and ignorance (all three terms, as is suffering, are approximate translation from the Pali, and are broader in application than the colloquial way in which they are used in English.
Thirdly, the Buddha never claimed anywhere that the way he expounded was the only way. He only stated he found a way to escape suffering, and descibed that way. Now you must see that logically the point your make is not relevant since it implies things/ a context, in contradiction with what you are asserting is true, in the case of Buddhism.

Lastly I will be keeping on both meditating and judging. This may very well be a not very Buddhist thing to do, in the broader meaning of "hate" ie, it covers such things as mild dislike, or, any negative reaction in the psyche for that matter. And no, I don't hate you [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] at all, I swear to god [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] but as I said misrepresentation will get neither of us where we want to be. By the way, the exclusively, specifically or distinguishing Buddhist meditation (there are others that are used by Buddhists also and are of benefit) is precisely an attempt at improving non-judgemental observation of your own psyche. The net result is bringing about an elimination of erroneous view point about what reality is, and, what we are as conscious being. It is called Vipassanna.

Enjoy, and again, I wish you all happiness possible.