Sceptics and the Buddha, a thread for everyone else :)

[Dancing David]

It's a difficult question.

I think there may be somewhat of a time lag here, as after I wrote what you are responding to, I wrote something else about another kind of existential grief that I thought might provide better common ground. IOW, I'm trying my best to show good faith.

Ultimately, though, if there are problems with my being able to speak for other people, then by the same token, there are problems with Gautama Buddha's being able to speak for other people.

The buddha never claimed to speak for other people, his tools can be used or not, at the will of each person.

My question was more your apparent condemnation of something as being adolescent angst.
I pointed out that
a. many people experience deep grief in those situations.
b. Asked you if you can say that your process is similar or the same as someone elses?

Different people grief for different things, some grieved Bill Clinton, other Pat Robetson.

Interdependant and unique.

 

[yrreg]

Point well taken.

However, since you have accepted something as a compliment, perhaps you will think about a criticism as well. Posting multiple, multi-page responses in sequence is likely to give the impression of trollish behavior. -- Epepke​

​

Thanks, Epepke, for that tip.

Actually I am experimenting, that word again, to see which among the threads I have started is the best for my purpose. So far Facts and Fictions in Buddhism seems to be the most versatile for my purpose.

But I also visit threads of others like the present one and that you started or I think more correctly Ryokan on Evidence of Buddhism, and give my views.

Since you are a good adviser and I count you a teacher -- of course I take care not to fall into infatuation with teachers as I see Buddhists here infatuated with a teacher from the times when society was bereft of science, technology, and the laws of critical and clear thinking, tell me for my vanity -- hehehe softly, what do you think of my equanimity? And my humor?

Best regards, and I am very glad you are around.


Yrreg

 

[RandFan]

A quick asside. I don't find yrreg a troll. I don't agree with everything he (she?) says but the poster seems sincere enough.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the thread. My thanks to those who have participated. I simply don't have enough information yet to come to a conclusion as to the merits of Buddhism. I know a few Buddhists and I am very impressed with them. However I have met people who have made similar statements about Mormons and having grown up a Mormon I know it is not always what it appears to be. Anecdotal evidence must be viewed with skepticism (not to be construed to mean anyone here is simply relying on anecdotal evidence)

Carry on.

 

[username]

Thanks, Epepke, for that tip.

Actually I am experimenting, that word again, to see which among the threads I have started is the best for my purpose. So far Facts and Fictions in Buddhism seems to be the most versatile for my purpose.

I didn't start this thread so I can't say for certain, but the phrase "for everyone else" in the title of this thread seems to be directed at you.

It isn't to be mean, rather it is that you have 3 or more threads of your own on buddhism where you are the lecturer at large. You repeatedly create strawmen and demonstrate a refusal to listen to buddhists as to what buddhism actually says.

You seem fond of the expression "short statement and big picture" even though you have been told repeatedly this will get you nowhere.

You do not appear to care.

Hence, several have deemed you a troll (myself included).

I would thank you kindly to go away and stick to the threads you have started and those threads which don't exclude you by saying "for everyone else" which is a euphemism for everyone other than you.

But I also visit threads of others like the present one and that you started or I think more correctly Ryokan on Evidence of Buddhism, and give my views.

There is only one person who cares what your views are and it is you. Epepke wishes to engage in skeptical criticism of buddhism and the resident buddhists are more than happy to answer his questions. He may not accept all answers, but at least he shows evidence of having read them which is more than you show.

Since you are a good adviser and I count you a teacher -- of course I take care not to fall into infatuation with teachers as I see Buddhists here infatuated with a teacher from the times when society was bereft of science, technology, and the laws of critical and clear thinking, tell me for my vanity -- hehehe softly, what do you think of my equanimity? And my humor?

I think you might be mentally ill.

 

[Dancing David]

I didn't start this thread so I can't say for certain, but the phrase "for everyone else" in the title of this thread seems to be directed at you.

It was meant as humor, hence the smily face.

I think you might be mentally ill.

I would not make that assesment, yrreg seems to be very healthy.

 

[epepke]

The buddha never claimed to speak for other people, his tools can be used or not, at the will of each person.

No, I don't think that one can get off that easily.

My question was more your apparent condemnation of something as being adolescent angst.
I pointed out that
a. many people experience deep grief in those situations.
b. Asked you if you can say that your process is similar or the same as someone elses?

Did you even read what I wrote? I was showing good faith by coming up with something else that I could call existential angst. I pointed attention to that. I am trying to find common ground, in good faith.

As far as true uniqueness goes, I suppose that there is someone so privileged that he can have a hangnail and be in the worst possible agony of his life.

Philip K. Dick wrote a book once and talked about the American Express commercial that had someone losing $200 during a vacation and saying that it was the worst thing that ever happened to him. Dick's response was that if that is the worst thing that has ever happened to you, then you've led a pretty sheltered life. I do not think this is an unreasonable thing to say, nor do I think it must be trumped by some vague statement about "uniqueness."

This brings up two questions.

One is the possibility that Buddhism, or specifically its ability to reduce suffering, may only be valuable for those with sheltered lives. It may be the functional equivalent of two aspirin or a hit of dope. Useful for mild symptoms.

Another is that, well, people just naturally grow a thicker skin as they get older. Time does not heal wounds; that is a myth. But it does cause one to incorporate scar tissue, which is less sensitive. How is one to distinguish the effects of a lifetime living as a Buddhist from a lifetime just living?

Nota bene, I don't have a particular answer to these questions, but I consider it valid to bring them up.

 

[Dancing David]

No, I don't think that one can get off that easily.

Okay, the buddha also tailored his speech to his audience, or the oral history was edited to his audience.
When a follower of Beamha asked how to get to Bramha the buddha is alleged to have answered in termso fo Bramaha. So he may not have tried to speak for everyone but he did try to answer those who asked him questions.

Did you even read what I wrote? I was showing good faith by coming up with something else that I could call existential angst. I pointed attention to that. I am trying to find common ground, in good faith.

Given the fact that your comment followed Ryokan's disclosure about his depression, I misinterpreted your response in that context.

As far as true uniqueness goes, I suppose that there is someone so privileged that he can have a hangnail and be in the worst possible agony of his life.

No uniqueness means that while that is possible, there are no hard fast solutions in life, we all different histories, different strenths and vulnerabilities.

Philip K. Dick wrote a book once and talked about the American Express commercial that had someone losing $200 during a vacation and saying that it was the worst thing that ever happened to him. Dick's response was that if that is the worst thing that has ever happened to you, then you've led a pretty sheltered life. I do not think this is an unreasonable thing to say, nor do I think it must be trumped by some vague statement about "uniqueness."

I am glad you enjoy yourself, I agree with P.K. Dick, again I thought you had characterized someone's grief related depression as adolescent angst.

This brings up two questions.

One is the possibility that Buddhism, or specifically its ability to reduce suffering, may only be valuable for those with sheltered lives. It may be the functional equivalent of two aspirin or a hit of dope. Useful for mild symptoms.

Those who practise buddhism that are not from sheltered life would be fairly common.
I think you also have not seen the suffering of people who did not lead sheltered lives.
They suffer from the same unattainable desires and frustrations of the affluent.
I have hospitalized many a farm raised and hard working person for suicidal risk.
Living the 'hard life' may make you more resiliant, but there is more to it than that. I have met many a hard worker who has persistantlt done the unhealthy thing over and over and over.

Another is that, well, people just naturally grow a thicker skin as they get older. Time does not heal wounds; that is a myth. But it does cause one to incorporate scar tissue, which is less sensitive. How is one to distinguish the effects of a lifetime living as a Buddhist from a lifetime just living?

A very good question, and one I have thought upon, the only counter is that I have met plenty of suffering people in thier latter years, who suffer because of fear of the undesirable or attachment to the desirable.

Nota bene, I don't have a particular answer to these questions, but I consider it valid to bring them up.

All questions are valid and should always be considered.

 

[yrreg]

Don't read this because it is spontaneous.

I didn't start this thread so I can't say for certain, but the phrase "for everyone else" in the title of this thread seems to be directed at you.

It isn't to be mean, rather it is that you have 3 or more threads of your own on buddhism where you are the lecturer at large. You repeatedly create strawmen and demonstrate a refusal to listen to buddhists as to what buddhism actually says.

You seem fond of the expression "short statement and big picture" even though you have been told repeatedly this will get you nowhere.

You do not appear to care.

Hence, several have deemed you a troll (myself included).

I would thank you kindly to go away and stick to the threads you have started and those threads which don't exclude you by saying "for everyone else" which is a euphemism for everyone other than you.



There is only one person who cares what your views are and it is you. Epepke wishes to engage in skeptical criticism of buddhism and the resident buddhists are more than happy to answer his questions. He may not accept all answers, but at least he shows evidence of having read them which is more than you show.



I think you might be mentally ill.

I don't need the crutch of Buddhism like you; and there be very many like me who don't need Buddhism for a crutch in life, and they are like me finding life on their own most satisfactory and meaningful, and I am like them being productive to self and neighbors in a most positive manner I can manage, again without Buddhism like you -- which crutch of Buddhism is a pseudo crutch.

Anyway, Om Mani Padme Hum -- okay?

Or you can recite the mantra of D David: "Yrreg is a troll," that should make you feel better. [Hahaha.]


Yrreg

 

[Dancing David]

I don't need the crutch of Buddhism like you; and there be very many like me who don't need Buddhism for a crutch in life, and they are like me finding life on their own most satisfactory and meaningful, and I am like them being productive to self and neighbors in a most positive manner I can manage, again without Buddhism like you -- which crutch of Buddhism is a pseudo crutch.

Anyway, Om Mani Padme Hum -- okay?

Or you can recite the mantra of D David: "Yrreg is a troll," that should make you feel better. [Hahaha.]


Yrreg

I meant no harm to you, and my responses are certainly not those advised by the buddha, I have stated that I believe you are a troll because you act like a troll. I have recnetly begun to wonder about that judgement.

Yet these are the behaviors that seem to be trollish:
1. The constrction of strawman arguments without citation of evidence.
2. Repeated assertions about your percieved beliefs concerning buddhism without citation.
3. Repeated refusal to defend prior statements through the debate process of response and rebuttal to questions.
4. Similar refusal to address the logical falws and mis-statements in your posts.
5. You say that you want your answers short and sweet but your posts appear at times to dwell on extended essays concerning your beliefs without reference to any citations or evidence.
6. Repeated rationalizations and excuses for your inability or unwillingness to answer any questions directed to you.

Because of these behaviors it appears at times that you are simply here to trumpet your own beliefs with no intrest in actual communication, in short a troll. A rather pleasant troll of the care bear variety.

It is not a mantra Yrreg, it is a response to the continued patterns stated above. When I state that you are ignorant it is not meant as an insult but a frank statement that you ignore the facts and make some really outlandish statements that appear out of the blue and are often dangerous. Such as your statements that those with a mental illness should seek out a school counselor of surgery. Do you know that school counselors use CBT if they are trained therapists?

Your motives and beliefs are still opaque.

Not that I expect you to respond this or any other pointed post that I make, be blessed in yourself. If you don't like, need or want buddhism, then more power to you.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't need the crutch of Buddhism like you; and there be very many like me who don't need Buddhism for a crutch in life, and they are like me finding life on their own most satisfactory and meaningful, and I am like them being productive to self and neighbors in a most positive manner I can manage, again without Buddhism like you -- which crutch of Buddhism is a pseudo crutch.




Yrreg

While you think this to be true, and for some people crutches are a needful thing , it is against the teachings of the buddha.

The buddha taught that the dharma/dhamma is like a boat. It is meant to convey someone from one side of the river to the otherside of the river. Once the journey is made , then the boat is left at the shore. There is no need to carry the boat upon one's back as the journey continues.

The goal of buddhism is to remove hinderances to livibg life. If you don't feel that you need the boat to cross the river, then be blessed in yourself.

PS The boot strap method does not work for all people.

 

[epepke]

Those who practise buddhism that are not from sheltered life would be fairly common.

This is probably true, but it comes across to me as a bit evasive. The question on the table, or at least one of them, is what exactly does the claim that Buddhist practice is good for eliminating suffering (it's usually stated that way, but I'll accept "reducing" rather than "eliminating" provisionally) actually means. So we have to ask the question of what "suffering" means in the context of Buddhism.

That many people without sheltered lives practice Buddhism is, on the face of it, no more telling than the fact that a lot of people with cancer use homeopathy, eat wheat grass shakes, or inject laetrille.

I think you also have not seen the suffering of people who did not lead sheltered lives.

This is presumptuous of you and also, I think, wrong. I, for one, have not led a sheltered life, and for only about two years of my life could have been considered affluent. Right now, I'm poor, but at least I can afford refrigeration, which has not always been true. As I've pointed out before, I've also taught residents of a mental hospital.

They suffer from the same unattainable desires and frustrations of the affluent.

Well, now, just my personal experience would lead me to agree with you. First of all, I found that my adolescent angst, at least, turned out to involve desires that actually were attainable. Also, I have to say that any unattainable desires are the least of my worries.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Being awake is not about beliefs. You cant discuss it, you cant understand it if you are not "there", and you cant pretend it.

Thats why Buddhism is so different from beliefs. Its just a reminder, if anything, about such state. Not at all a body of beliefs.

 

[epepke]

Being awake is not about beliefs. You cant discuss it, you cant understand it if you are not "there", and you cant pretend it.

Thats why Buddhism is so different from beliefs. Its just a reminder, if anything, about such state. Not at all a body of beliefs.

Well, now I'm getting confused again.

Earlier in this set of threads, someone said that there is no awakeness.

So what is it?

And if "being awake" means something, what does it mean?

I think that the existence of your first statement disproves your second. The statement "being awake is not about beliefs" is a statement about being awake, and it is therefore part of a discussion. (This paragraph, so far, also is part of a discussion.)

It causes other problems. If it cannot be discussed, of what value is it to say that you can't understand it if not "there"? Prima facie, there would seem to be no way of communicating if you're "there" to another person who was "there." So it would be completely ideosyncratic. And, if so, how could it be said to be part of Buddhism?

 

[yrreg]

"Sentient beings," the first cornerstone of Buddhism

This thread is entitled, "Sceptics and the Buddha, a thread for everyone else ;" so I guess there can be no deviation from the topic, or the present dicscussion at this point in time.

-------------------


I keep on thinking just what is the most fundamental notion of Buddhism like the first cornerstone, so that if you remove that stone the whole building of Buddhism crumbles down.

And I believe I have found it, it is the proposition that sentient beings have always existed from eternity but are in a process to arrive at Nirvana; when they all have arrived at Nirvana, then what? or it is of no profit to ask that question -- just you keep working for Nirvana and help others also?

I find that kind of a cornerstone to be unacceptable, on an emotional level, silly.

What I know from science is that human life and consciousness together comes about from the blind universe of matter and energy through the process of what I might call terrestrial chemistry as distinct from what I might call astro or cosmic chemistry -- which of course is the same chemistry in the big picture.

Now, what I have been reading on the ultimate premises of Buddhism, human life and consciousness is just a specimen of sentient beings; for with Buddhists, there are also gods which are what people in the West call spirits, demons, or even fairies, [softly, hahaha]; now, this is one aspect of Buddhism that Western Buddhists would rather now talk about, even though their pristine and much adored teacher Buddha also took most seriously, because these gods have to arrive at Nirvana one day.


For Buddhists, sentient beings antedate the big bang of scientific cosmology, and all sentient beings will in the end scenario of the universe arrive at Nirvana.

But what is Nirvana? Very fuzzy from Buddhists, unlike the insurance people who can at least spell out to you what their policies can get for you or your beneficiaries in terms of money or shelter or health care or replacement of material things lost or destroyed, and we have seen these insurance people make good on their promises.

Yrreg

 

[epepke]

I keep on thinking just what is the most fundamental notion of Buddhism like the first cornerstone, so that if you remove that stone the whole building of Buddhism crumbles down.

And I believe I have found it, it is the proposition that sentient beings have always existed from eternity but are in a process to arrive at Nirvana; when they all have arrived at Nirvana, then what? or it is of no profit to ask that question -- just you keep working for Nirvana and help others also?

Well, that is a cornerstone of Buddhism. And as far as I can understand it, if all beings arrived ar Nirvana, then we'd all be comfortably dead.

I also think it's an absurd and rather stupid and puerile, not to mention supernatural and probably false idea.

However, concluding something about Buddhist practice from this would be an example of the fallacist's fallacy. If Buddhism somehow led to the conclusion that sauteed mushrooms tasted good, I wouldn't stop enjoying them because it was based on fallacious premises.

 

[yrreg]

No genuine factual basis

I meant no harm to you, and my responses are certainly not those advised by the buddha, I have stated that I believe you are a troll because you act like a troll. I have recnetly begun to wonder about that judgement.

Yet these are the behaviors that seem to be trollish:
1. The constrction of strawman arguments without citation of evidence.
2. Repeated assertions about your percieved beliefs concerning buddhism without citation.
3. Repeated refusal to defend prior statements through the debate process of response and rebuttal to questions.
4. Similar refusal to address the logical falws and mis-statements in your posts.
5. You say that you want your answers short and sweet but your posts appear at times to dwell on extended essays concerning your beliefs without reference to any citations or evidence.
6. Repeated rationalizations and excuses for your inability or unwillingness to answer any questions directed to you.

Because of these behaviors it appears at times that you are simply here to trumpet your own beliefs with no intrest in actual communication, in short a troll. A rather pleasant troll of the care bear variety.

It is not a mantra Yrreg, it is a response to the continued patterns stated above. When I state that you are ignorant it is not meant as an insult but a frank statement that you ignore the facts and make some really outlandish statements that appear out of the blue and are often dangerous. Such as your statements that those with a mental illness should seek out a school counselor of surgery. Do you know that school counselors use CBT if they are trained therapists?

Your motives and beliefs are still opaque.

Not that I expect you to respond this or any other pointed post that I make, be blessed in yourself. If you don't like, need or want buddhism, then more power to you.

I am certain, D David, that if you were mindful of your right thought and right speech, you would not accuse me of that repertory of gripes against me.

Citing is not necessary unless you are of the mind like that of newly literate folks, who think that if it's in the papers it must be true and serious.

Where citation really serves a useful pertinent and decisive purpose I do give references to the web. See my messages on two quotes allegedly from Einstein endorsing Buddhism, in that thread on Facts and Fictions on Buddhism.

You think that I don't attend to your answers; but I do, only I don't accept them. Just because you have the true believers syndrome does not mean that I have to take your answers hook, line, and sinker. When I don't accept an answer usually I prefer to keep a polite silence.

Besides, I notice that you are prone to selective reading. Go over that message of mine here mentioning pharmaceutics and surgery, and in your right mind and right speech you will have to admit that you are purposely engaging in selective reading.

I think even Epepke here observes that his messages or thoughts are not read or attended to as he would want them to be -- and he used to help folks in the mental asylum.

Tell you what, D David, go over all my messages here in JREF forum, and see if any one of your charges is based on genuine factually justifiable grounds.

But remember, we are here to also have fun, not to get all worked up as to lose our equanimity.

So, Om Mani Padme Hum.

One more thing, if it is any consolation to you, I look up my warning link here to find out whether any has been issued to me from the authorities here. So far none. Do you see any?

But I have seen three warnings issued to a poster here who is also seemingly engaged in the work of moderator of sorts. Here, see this image upload below.




I am having fun here; and as soon as it's no longer fun, I will have to bid adieu to all you Buddhists here, and remove that descriptive label of Resident Buddhist Critic, that is when I am truly proven to be very wrong in everything I nurse in critical skepticism about Buddhism and its Western enthusiasts.


Yrreg

 

[nosho]

Hi Yrreg,
Buddhism is a very strange religion, because it invites followers to discard any notions at all if those notions do not stand up to personal observation. This includes notions like nirvana. In fact, I'd wager that Buddhists would encourage followers to discard any notion of nirvana as being a wrong perception. Particularly the notion of nirvana as a separate destination where we do not presently find ourselves.
So if you're looking for a cornerstone to kick away, I don't think your proposition does it. Have sentient beings always existed from eternity? Who knows, and who cares? Why is that important to the path? That's what I think most Buddhists would say about this "cornerstone." It's just not an important element of the practice.
If you are looking for the "most fundamental notion of Buddhism," here it is:
The 4 noble truths:
1) There is suffering.
2) Suffering has a beginning.
3) Suffering has an end.
4) There is a path out of suffering.
There it is. I have not encountered a single tradition in Buddhism that rejects this cornerstone. This is where to start if you want to kick away a cornerstone and watch the whole structure of Buddhism collapse.

 

[fruit_loup]

Buddhism can be called a suggested notion of the human condition. The Four Noble Truths give us a possible means to an end.

1.There is suffering.

This suggests that we suffer. That at least sometimes in life things will not go as planned, we will have sadnesses, we will get sick, we will grow old, and we will die.


2.There is a cause to suffering.

This suggests that we suffer because of our attachments. We cling to our ideas and in the process refuse to understand everything eventually ends. If I lose a large some of money, and refuse to let go of the desire for and attatchment to that money, then I will suffer. Sometimes this clinging is to what we have had and lost, sometimes it is for what we never have had. In the latter case we become a preta, or hungry ghost. We live to satisfy our desires and can never have our feel. When we obtain what it is we want, we are already longing for something else. To take my earlier money example. If I were the sort for which money is never enough and spent considerable time longing for more and thinking of ways to get more, then I am a preta who is desireous of money. Then, even if I obtained millions of dollars, it would not be enough.


3.There is an end to suffering.

This suggests that there is a possible way which we as sentient beings are capable of ending that suffering through our knowledge of it. And that in the freedom from suffering we are capable of experiencing life with true joy from moment to moment without suffering or even the fear of suffering. In other words, we would be enlightened, illuminated, a Buddha or whatever other term you wish to use. In short, we obtain Nirvana.


4.The end to suffering is through understanding what and why we suffer and thus practicing self-discipline to master our unhealthy attachments.

This suggests, that to end our suffering, we must first understand our suffering, and then exercise our control over our own mind so as to control our desires and impulses. If I lose a great sum of money, cannot let it go, and am therefore suffering because of it, the way to end that suffering is to realise that I would never have had it forever to begin with. I would then apply myself to letting it go. This is where meditation comes in. Meditation is simply training your mind so that it does what you wish it to as opposed to being turbulent and over emotional. Doing away with this attachment does not mean doing away with any attachment. I would still use money, still use goods, and would not go live in the wilderness and become an ascetic. I would just see it for what it is and not let it have any more influence over me than I choose. To give a comparrison, if you are overweight you do not give up food altogether, but limit the amount of food which you allow yourself. You find the pather between the two extremes, and seek to find the "just enough" point between too much and too little. This is the essence of Buddhism and why it has been called the middle way. Through this not clinging to suffering, you can experience each moment as the moment. You appreciate it more for what it is and you take more joy from that.



These Four Noble Truths are the means Siddhartha suggested to us to understand and better our situation. If you read them, it does not matter whether you agree with all of it, part of it, or none of it. What does matter, and is most relevant, is that you draw that conclusion for yourself. This means seeking all the facts to it, listening to any criticism for the good or bad which may occur, and not stubbornly walling yourself against any arguement for or against. If you wish to believe or disbelieve in a deity concept, that is your decission to make. Not mine, not a scholar's, not a mystic's, and not a Buddha's. In Buddhism everything outside of making up your own mind, is a mere suggestion.



So to you opposing Buddhism, listen to what the supporters have to say. To you supporting, listen to what the opposers have to say. We all have the ability and right to form our own conclusions. We can only hope to form these conclusions with the most knowledge available to us.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, now I'm getting confused again.

Excellent!

And if "being awake" means something, what does it mean?

Lets say that its simply a different perspective from where what we call "the world" is presented to what appears to be "the observer". Nothing "magical" nor "mystical" here.

I think that the existence of your first statement disproves your second. The statement "being awake is not about beliefs" is a statement about being awake, and it is therefore part of a discussion. (This paragraph, so far, also is part of a discussion.)

Do you care to explain a bit better what you are saying? Being awake, in the sense Buddhism talks about it, is to make available to the ego a different point of view regarding the world. We are talking about something like the sensation of eating "enchiladas" in a Mexican restaurant (in Mexico City). You can certainly talk about it with someone who has not tasted them. But all you can say about it is wrong, its not something you can explain with words. Not something you can share the knowledge about. He have to eat them in order to know what is their taste.

It causes other problems. If it cannot be discussed, of what value is it to say that you can't understand it if not "there"? Prima facie, there would seem to be no way of communicating if you're "there" to another person who was "there." So it would be completely ideosyncratic. And, if so, how could it be said to be part of Buddhism?

Epepke, you are a rational being. We most share a common frame of reference in order to talk about it. Have you tasted Mexican enchiladas in Mexico City? Because, if you have not, how can you discuss about them?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It is the proposition that sentient beings have always existed from eternity but are in a process to arrive at Nirvana

What a pile of nonsense! ;-)