A simple explanation of why Buddhism is correct.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

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)

This moment appears to exist and it appears to be seen.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
This moment appears to exist and it appears to be seen.

This is true.

Buddhahood can not be obtained it is your true nature, it must be uncovered. It is the person that gets in the way.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Buddhahood can not be obtained it is your true nature, it must be uncovered.

This is true.

Humans do all have the same mind. It is conditioned, programmed, implanted and it is not who you are, it is not what you are.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Humans do all have the same mind. It is conditioned, programmed, implanted and it is not who you are.

Humans do all have the same nature of mind.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Humans do all have the same mind. It is conditioned, programmed, implanted and it is not who you are.

Humans do all have the same nature of mind.

The mind is a bad master but a great servant.

Recognizing the nature of the mind is just step one in Vajrayana.

You still have to eliminate all delusion, until your omniscient nature is revealed.

This is where tummo etc. come into play.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Recognizing the nature of the mind is just step one in Vajrayana.

You still have to eliminate all delusion, until your omniscient nature is revealed.

This is where tummo etc. come into play.

Start with what you know for sure. And you will quickly see delusion fall away.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


But even then, we don't know what we think we know. We know what we CHOOSE to know, so every moment of our lives, we're believing what we want to believe. That belief becomes the world around us.

So in starting with what we know, you are telling us to follow our deepest beliefs, which won't work. Stick to quantifiable facts, people. That's all you'll be able to prove to others, for in proving it to others, you confirm that it's actually true, independent of your own impressions, it's a fact regardless of whether you observe it or not.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

But even then, we don't know what we think we know. We know what we CHOOSE to know, so every moment of our lives, we're believing what we want to believe. That belief becomes the world around us.

So in starting with what we know, you are telling us to follow our deepest beliefs, which won't work. Stick to quantifiable facts, people. That's all you'll be able to prove to others, for in proving it to others, you confirm that it's actually true, independent of your own impressions, it's a fact regardless of whether you observe it or not.

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

Wasn't there a school of thought saying for every logical truth, there was an exact opposite logical falsehood negating the truth?

Originally posted by windword
That being said, the Dalai Lama also said that Buddhism is fluid and changes with science, learns from science. But anything based on spiritualism and the development of spiritualism as it pertains to the journey of the soul, humanity, the planet and ultimately god, is a religion.

Thats because science is 100% in line with Dependent Origination, and always will be.

reply to post by NotReallyASecret


So, I'm confused at what you believe...

That because of Dependent Origination, no God or "whole" exists? (Reading from your post that blows away anything bibledefender could say) That God could not have arisen Himself, or there would be more "arisings" because it's in His nature? He could not have risen from something else, because other things can rise from something else, or that something else didn't exist? He could not have risen from a combination of the two because they have both been negated?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You're a pretty smart person. I was re-reading some of our discussion. Sorry for blowing up at the end, It was 4am here when we were going through all that and I was exhausted.

I still think we were saying the same things, though

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

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...

Thank you for your reply,
However, you never stated if you agree to the rules of the debate. Second, this was to be a debate on the historical evidence using methodology that secular historians use. Third, since I am the one making the affirmative position, I should have the opening statement. Since you clearly neglected all of these (which I believe to be reasonable, since BOTH sides must adhere to them), it tells me that you really are a) not familiar at all with how debates work, b) Don't really care to have a logical, formal discussion. So again, before we begin, do you or do you not agree to the rules of the debate put forth?

Originally posted by bibledefender

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

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...

Thank you for your reply,
However, you never stated if you agree to the rules of the debate. Second, this was to be a debate on the historical evidence using methodology that secular historians use. Third, since I am the one making the affirmative position, I should have the opening statement. Since you clearly neglected all of these (which I believe to be reasonable, since BOTH sides must adhere to them), it tells me that you really are a) not familiar at all with how debates work, b) Don't really care to have a logical, formal discussion. So again, before we begin, do you or do you not agree to the rules of the debate put forth?

I'm you're huckleberry.

Hello!
Well do you agree to the rules of the debate or not?

reply to post by bibledefender


Sure, go ahead with your first turn.

reply to post by mkmasn


Do you have an email or can i send you a message?

reply to post by bibledefender


Just do it in the thread.