It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A simple explanation of why Buddhism is correct.

page: 15
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by bibledefender

Again I refer to my invite to a debate on the Resurrection. Yes or no?



As a Buddhist, I'll debate any Christian on any topic. No problem for me.


Ok, how does the ground rules for our debate sound to you? May I suggest since this is an open forum (again anyone can just jump in and put their two cents in, which would possibly detract attention from the debate), would you be interested in joining a moderated debate site (onlinedebate.net is a good one, although predominately atheist)? Or maybe email?



My first post here already demolishes any claim that you possibly can make:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


5 pages and no flags.
Not very credible really.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


5 pages and no flags.
Not very credible really.






You gotta love this forum.
edit on 15-8-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


I just don't believe you are an authority on Buddhism from what i have read. You might see the finger but have you seen the moon?
edit on 15-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
I just don't believe you are an authority on Buddhism from what i have read..


But who are you to decide?

You are just some sort of gnostic nondualist Christian type.

As far as I know, I'm the only long time serious Buddhist on this site with a lama.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
I just don't believe you are an authority on Buddhism from what i have read..


But who are you to decide?

You are just some sort of gnostic nondualist Christian type.

As far as I know, I'm the only long time serious Buddhist on this site with a lama.


The use of labels give you away.

Stating that you are a serious Buddhist and now labelling me 'gnostic nondualist Christian type'.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
The use of labels give you away.

Stating that you are a serious Buddhist and now labelling me 'gnostic nondualist Christian type'.



I'm going by your own comments on this forum. Looks like I struck a nerve.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


I do not label myself or 'others' as this presumes there is separation.
And assumes there is something when you have 'said' there is nothing but you do not 'know' there is nothing.
edit on 15-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
I do not label myself or 'others' as this presumes there is separation.



I'm not a monist. If you want to be a Kashmir Shaivaite, go for it.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
And assumes there is something when you have said there is nothing but you do not know there is nothing.


I've never said there was nothing. That would be nihilism.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


Labels, labels, labels.
It is only labels that divide the whole.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
It is only labels that divide the whole.


You are the one saying there is a whole, like a Kashmir Saivaite. This is a realist view.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
It is only labels that divide the whole.


You are the one saying there is a whole, like a Kashmir Saivaite. This is a realist view.


Until you give up the labels you will not see the moon, just the finger that points.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
It is only labels that divide the whole.


You are the one saying there is a whole, like a Kashmir Saivaite. This is a realist view.


Until you give up the labels you will not see the moon, just the finger that points.


Yeah take your own advice. There is no whole.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
It is only labels that divide the whole.


You are the one saying there is a whole, like a Kashmir Saivaite. This is a realist view.


Until you give up the labels you will not see the moon, just the finger that points.


Yeah take your own advice. There is no whole.


Until you know the whole you will feel incomplete.
edit on 15-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Until you know the whole you will feel incomplete.
edit on 15-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


You have to prove there is a whole. The onus is on you to support your claim.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Until you know the whole you will feel incomplete.
edit on 15-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


You have to prove there is a whole. The onus is on you to support your claim.


I cannot tear the walls you 'believe' are there down. And putting the onus on 'another' is where all the trouble starts. The belief in 'other'.
There is no 'other'.
edit on 15-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Until you know the whole you will feel incomplete.
edit on 15-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


You have to prove there is a whole. The onus is on you to support your claim.


I cannot tear the walls you 'believe' are there down. And putting the onus on 'another' is where all the trouble starts. The belief in 'other'.
There is no 'other'.
edit on 15-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


I agree there is no other. I've said as much before.

But there is no whole either.

Its free from the extremes of unity and multiplicity.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


If there is no 'other' then what's missing? It must be complete.
It is one without a second.
The word 'whole' could be mistaken for 'a thing' and what was really meant was complete.
Or This Is It.
edit on 15-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


If there is no 'other' then what's missing? It must be complete.
It is one without a second.
The word 'whole' could be mistaken for 'a thing' and what was really meant was complete.

edit on 15-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)




Whole, first off, implies that something exists. This is a realist view.

Secondly, if one person obtains Buddhahood, do all people obtain Buddhahood?

All we can say is that humans have the same nature of mind, but not the same mind.
edit on 15-8-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join