"purpose of life" +Buddhism

[nescafe]

What then is The Truth in Buddhism if any?

snip using Google searches to demonstrate deep philosophy

Yrreg

Wow, it is really good to know that Google is really the final authority on such matter-of-fact and unambiguous concepts as the Buddhist conception of Truth. I guess I can just abandon my critical thinking skills now, secure in the knowledge that the mighty Google will supply all my Truth forevermore.

 

[yrreg]

Are Buddhists skeptics?

Buddhism has been touted as a skeptical system, or that it views with skepticism a lot of knowledge from other realms of thought and research.

But when you turn the microscope eyepiece on Buddhism itself and Buddhists, it will conspicuously turn out that the system is not designed to be skeptical of itself -- it has also its sacred cows which brook no questioning; and Buddhists themselves are also instead of being skeptical about themselves, their knowledge of Buddhism, and their genuine intention and interest in adhering to Buddhism, are so certain about their knowledge of Buddhism and their intention and interest -- being pure and unalloyed of unworthy agenda.

So, can we ask Buddhists themselves whether they are exercising solid skepticism on Buddhism itself and on their own selves as Buddhists?


The same can be said of many a skeptic here, they themselves are not skeptical of their hand-me-down positions from their idolized masters, which masters themselves are not of the penchant of their adoring followers, which is the character of followers, their very core nature as not to question their own positions on anything and everything others hold to be deserving of at least a second and a third look.

I am sure true masters of skepticism first of all question anything and everything, but not deny anything and everything. The essence of skepticism is to question, not to deny.


But Buddhists and many a skeptic here do not know what is true skepticism, namely, the attitude and habit and skill to question; they think that the quintessence of skepticism is to deny -- which is absolutely alien to genuine skepticism as practiced by the founders of today's skepticism.


Yrreg

 

[Ryokan]

And here I thought this would be a discussion about Buddhism's view on the purpose of life, and now I see it was just another setup for yet another tirade against Buddhism by Yrreg.

Got any evidence for anything you say, or are you, yet again, pulling stuff out of your ass?

 

[hh-dragon]

I'd like to know if there has ever been a chiefly Buddhist-influenced country that has progressed scientifically to the degree it was Buddhist. I doubt there ever has been such a country.

I'm not 100% sure I understand that sentence, but how about Japan?

ETA : And, better yet, since Japan is more Shinto than Buddhist, what about South Korea?

The best example is probably the Tang dynasty (618-907 AD), which represents the nost dominant period of Buddhism in China. The introduction of block printing, paper money and gunpowder is pretty impressive.

 

[Dancing David]

Buddhism has been touted as a skeptical system, or that it views with skepticism a lot of knowledge from other realms of thought and research.

But when you turn the microscope eyepiece on Buddhism itself and Buddhists, it will conspicuously turn out that the system is not designed to be skeptical of itself -- it has also its sacred cows which brook no questioning; and Buddhists themselves are also instead of being skeptical about themselves, their knowledge of Buddhism, and their genuine intention and interest in adhering to Buddhism, are so certain about their knowledge of Buddhism and their intention and interest -- being pure and unalloyed of unworthy agenda.

So, can we ask Buddhists themselves whether they are exercising solid skepticism on Buddhism itself and on their own selves as Buddhists?


The same can be said of many a skeptic here, they themselves are not skeptical of their hand-me-down positions from their idolized masters, which masters themselves are not of the penchant of their adoring followers, which is the character of followers, their very core nature as not to question their own positions on anything and everything others hold to be deserving of at least a second and a third look.

I am sure true masters of skepticism first of all question anything and everything, but not deny anything and everything. The essence of skepticism is to question, not to deny.


But Buddhists and many a skeptic here do not know what is true skepticism, namely, the attitude and habit and skill to question; they think that the quintessence of skepticism is to deny -- which is absolutely alien to genuine skepticism as practiced by the founders of today's skepticism.


Yrreg

I still see no evidence here, just your personal opinion Yrreg, I doubt that is sceptical.

What is even funnier is how you ignore the evidence that I have presented in anwser to your questions regarding the irrational nature of buddhist practices.

It seems to me that in your post you have merely presented your personal views, without any substantiating evidence to support your beliefs, that is not scepticism.

I do question my beliefs and study the evidence to see if they are supported.

it will conspicuously turn out that the system is not designed to be skeptical of itself

I can provide multiple references to counter this claim, from the teachings of the allegedly historical buddha through the modern teachers.

What evidence do you have that as a system buddhism does not encourage sceptical examination of buddhism..

I hope you can do more than quote yourself, so what about a citation to support your claim.

it has also its sacred cows which brook no questioning;

it is to laugh Yrreg, ha ha .

Do you have any evidence of the unquestioned cows?

More quotes from that Amsus guy?

they themselves are not skeptical of their hand-me-down positions from their idolized masters

I will publish a public announcement that i am wrong in this forum if you can demonstate that claim, wherein this forum and the many posts on buddhism can you support this contention that the buddhists who post here are not sceptical.

Tha challenge stands Yrreg, but you will run away and change the subject.

Poseur, fake sceptic! J'accuse!

their very core nature as not to question their own positions on anything and everything others hold to be deserving of at least a second and a third look.

Are you looking in the mirror doctor Freud?

I challenge you tyo substantiate this claim as well. Please to link to three posts which would indicate that the buddhists on this forum do not examine thier beliefs. provide proof of your vauge and false assertions and I will publicaly apologise in the R&P fourom as well as community.

You are a bogus sceptic.

 

[Dancing David]

And here I thought this would be a discussion about Buddhism's view on the purpose of life, and now I see it was just another setup for yet another tirade against Buddhism by Yrreg.

Got any evidence for anything you say, or are you, yet again, pulling stuff out of your ass?

Oh no, Ryokan, you used the butt word again, I am sure that he will read it and put it in BIG.

maybe it's some sort of compensation.

 

[yrreg]

The first giveaway of a false skeptic.

First of all, you can know a false skeptic by the name he calls himself and is proud to do so, namely, after the name of his master.

Thus there are people here who call themselves Buddhists and declare themselves to be proud of the Buddhist label or brand name.


True Skeptics don't hold any human like themselves to be their masters, theirs is only one authority – evidence and logic.

You see, the psychology of people calling themselves after the name of another human is that of worshipers, cultists, who let their mentors do all the thinking and of course all the erring, while they proceed in life without disquieting questions, on the justification that their leaders know better, even everything, correctly and authentically -- which leaders for being like themselves, humans, are as liable to go wrong time and again, if not wrong from the beginning.


If some people here should call themselves Randi-ists, like the followers of Ayn Rand call themselves Randians, then Randi might feel flattered, but he would lament and shed virtual tears in his heart and soul, for the people who should learn from his questioning mind have turned into bigotic cultists, slaves of an idol, instead of unremitting searchers of facts and unalloyed explanations of life and the universe, like Randi himself.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Don't read this (for humor only, but with a lesson).

[From Aesop Jr.]​

A colt asked its mother why some humans are always calling on the name of the ass when they speak.

The mare who is accustomed to philosophical reflections on humans, answered her infant thus:

Because they have an ass for a mouth.​

"But why do they, these same humans, have an ass for a mouth?" the baby horse persisted in his curiosity.

"Because when these same humans look at themselves in the mirror, they see their face as nothing but an ass looking back.

So, don't use their kind of language, otherwise you will look like them."​

[Just for laff.]


Yrreg

 

[Ryokan]

First of all, you can know a false skeptic by the name he calls himself and is proud to do so, namely, after the name of his master.

Thus there are people here who call themselves Buddhists and declare themselves to be proud of the Buddhist label or brand name.


True Skeptics don't hold any human like themselves to be their masters, theirs is only one authority – evidence and logic.

How many times must I tell you that Buddhism is not named after the Buddha? If it was, shouldn't it rather be called Gautamaism?

Buddhism is the search to gain enlightenment, to become a Buddha. Hence the name, Buddhism. A lot of Buddhist paths don't even focus on Gautama Buddha at all, like Zen, Pure Land, and others. They (and me, and most Buddhists) follow the Dharma, the teachings, what we consider to be a path to enlightenment and happiness.

But I've explained this to you a dozen times. Your brain must be made of teflon or something.

Besides, I hold evidence and logic in very high regard - much higher than I hold regard for the Buddha!

You see, the psychology of people calling themselves after the name of another human is that of worshipers, cultists, who let their mentors do all the thinking and of course all the erring blablablabla...

What about Darwinists?

Once again, I thought this thread was about the Buddhist view on the purpose of life. Why are you derailing your own thread with the same arguments, strawmen and logical fallacies that you've spewed out since you first arrived here? Where is your evidence and logic that you supposedly hold so high?

No, Yrreg, you're a liar, a fraud and bigot.

 

[yrreg]

Froom Google with love.

(Originally quoted by Nescafe as from yrreg)

What then is The Truth in Buddhism if any?

snip using Google searches to demonstrate deep philosophy​

Wow, it is really good to know that Google is really the final authority on such matter-of-fact and unambiguous concepts as the Buddhist conception of Truth. I guess I can just abandon my critical thinking skills now, secure in the knowledge that the mighty Google will supply all my Truth forevermore.

Dear Nescafe:

See if you are wise and resourceful and inventive.

Your boss or your teacher or your lover asks you to look up 'semiotics' for him, and you love to please him, what is the first thing you do?

Choose the first thing you will do from the list of the following options (not in any order of importance):

1. Read the print newspapers and magazines
2. Read the print dictionaries and encyclopedias
3. Ask your mother and father or friends
4. Enter 'semiotics' in the search box of Google
5. Go into meditation
6. Call 911
7. Do nothing​

This might be useful to you: No one is using Google for an authority -- at least not anyone I know to be wise, resourceful, and inventive, but as an instrument for quick and most convenient research. After Google you still have to do very careful reading and most demanding thinking -- as I am doing all the time.


Go and do likewise.



Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Madison Avenue double entendre.

How many times must I tell you that Buddhism is not named after the Buddha? If it was, shouldn't it rather be called Gautamaism?

Buddhism is the search to gain enlightenment, to become a Buddha. Hence the name, Buddhism. A lot of Buddhist paths don't even focus on Gautama Buddha at all, like Zen, Pure Land, and others. They (and me, and most Buddhists) follow the Dharma, the teachings, what we consider to be a path to enlightenment and happiness.

snip snip snip

That's all very wily said, Ryokan, good friend, up to my standards of friendship.

Suppose you meditate on the advertising world's slogan of truth in advertising, and see maybe you should call yourself by another label, say, lightseeker?


[ How is your equanimity meter? ]

I love you, Ryokan.

And, I am going back to "purpose of life" +buddhism.


Yrreg

 

[Ryokan]

Suppose you meditate on the advertising world's slogan of truth in advertising, and see maybe you should call yourself by another label, say, lightseeker?

"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet."

Labels can be very useful, and I myself proudly wear dozens of labels. Even this forum has a label, and caters to people of that label. There's nothing wrong with labels, and I'm sure you wear many of them yourself.

Besides, lightseeker? I'm not searching for photons. And if all Buddhists relabeled themselves lightseekers, wouldn't we be right back where we started?

I love you, Ryokan.

Thank you for that, but you're not my type.

And, I am going back to "purpose of life" +buddhism.

I hope for an interesting and constructive discussion, but I'm not holding my breath.

There is no purpose of life, though, except being present, aware and enjoy your time here.

 

[yrreg]

Intentional misreading is self double-intendre.

...lightseeker? I'm not searching for photons. And if all Buddhists relabeled themselves lightseekers, wouldn't we be right back where we started?

...lightseeker? I'm not searching for photons. And if all Buddhists relabeled themselves lightseekers, wouldn't we be right back where we started?​

Is that your manner of habitual speech? I think I am getting to know more and better of the you in Ryokan.

You seem to purposely engage in cross-eye reading in your mind. I suspect that in a carnival the guys operating shoot the prize booths fraudulently reworked the sighting structure of their rifles, so that customers cannot shoot straight as they think they are doing. Are you that kind of a guy as a poster here?

I mean, do you indulge as I now have another confirmation message, in your peculiar designers way of reading a text as to miss its obvious sense, to off-tangent into another direction alien to the patent meaning known to any literate user of language?

Perhaps you had your schooling in a peculiar educational system which in history has earned the notoriety of what I call the ethic or mis-ethic of double-entendre.

Anyway, I love you because I love mankind, all kinds, honest, dishonest, sincere, insincere, simple, complex from affectation, candid, pretentious, in particular everyone I have the good luck to meet in the web and outside.


Well, I am going back to "purpose of life" +Buddhism.

I am just disappointed that in our exchange I have more and more examples from you of what I might as said earlier call designers cross-eye reading.


Oh, I almost forget, you say:

And if all Buddhists relabeled themselves lightseekers, wouldn't we be right back where we started?​

Does the 'we' refer to Buddhists, or to you and me and posters here?

And if Buddhists, are you going back to that time mankind did not have the good fortune of Buddha's er Gautama's meditation and enlightenment, by which he found the way to nirvana and thus started to teach mankind? of which you are one of the blessed recipients of his preachment?

Meaning, until Buddha er Gautama came along, mankind did not know what mankind is all about even though it is caught in the almost eternal cycle of rebirths, etc. Is that the doctrine of the Buddha er Gautama? That so?

You believe all that, and being a skeptic at that?


Yrreg

 

[Dancing David]

First of all, you can know a false skeptic by the name he calls himself and is proud to do so, namely, after the name of his master.

Sooo... no evidence, just personal conjecture.

Thus there are people here who call themselves Buddhists and declare themselves to be proud of the Buddhist label or brand name.

No proof just a statement

True Skeptics don't hold any human like themselves to be their masters, theirs is only one authority – evidence and logic.

You haven't proven your assurtions, some person might style themselves as anything, you haven't proven the second part of the statement, that someone who styles themselves a buddhists holds the as thier master.

Just more of your personal beliefs and what I feel is false logic through assertions.

I give you a 'D' for your essay until you can demonstrate your assertion that calling yourself a 'generic-ist' means that you are a person who takes generic as master.

You see, the psychology of people calling themselves after the name of another human is that of worshipers, cultists, who let their mentors do all the thinking and of course all the erring,

more un proved assertion
Your grade is now a 'D-'.

while they proceed in life without disquieting questions, on the justification that their leaders know better, even everything, correctly and authentically -

More unsupported assertion, your grade is now an 'F'.

- which leaders for being like themselves, humans, are as liable to go wrong time and again, if not wrong from the beginning.


If some people here should call themselves Randi-ists, like the followers of Ayn Rand call themselves Randians, then Randi might feel flattered, but he would lament and shed virtual tears in his heart and soul, for the people who should learn from his questioning mind have turned into bigotic cultists, slaves of an idol, instead of unremitting searchers of facts and unalloyed explanations of life and the universe, like Randi himself.


Yrreg

I hope that you brush up on your critical thinking, what proof do you have for your unsupported assertions, I am sorry Yrreg but this is tuely getting weaker on your part.

 

[Dancing David]

[From Aesop Jr.]​

A colt asked its mother why some humans are always calling on the name of the ass when they speak.

The mare who is accustomed to philosophical reflections on humans, answered her infant thus:

Because they have an ass for a mouth.​

"But why do they, these same humans, have an ass for a mouth?" the baby horse persisted in his curiosity.

"Because when these same humans look at themselves in the mirror, they see their face as nothing but an ass looking back.

So, don't use their kind of language, otherwise you will look like them."​

[Just for laff.]


Yrreg

Still afraid to admit you fabricate stuff huh, or a false appeal to authority?

You probably ripped it off any how.

The only one pointing at the mirror is you Yrreg.

 

[Dancing David]

That's all very wily said, Ryokan, good friend, up to my standards of friendship.

Suppose you meditate on the advertising world's slogan of truth in advertising, and see maybe you should call yourself by another label, say, lightseeker?


[ How is your equanimity meter? ]

I love you, Ryokan.

And, I am going back to "purpose of life" +buddhism.


Yrreg

Still can't prove anything Yrreg, I am afraid that your grades a re falling and that you may have to repeat your semester. I suggest that you consider changing your area of study, critical thinking seems to be a ...well..., lets just say you might do better in political science. but if you apply yourself and begin using the skills of critical thought I am sure you can get a 'C' on the final exam.

;P

 

[yrreg]

Shallow vs depth contributions

Contributions of views, my impression, in message forums can be shallow or depth.

Dept contributions go to the body of a question, the flesh, the blood, the marrow, the heart, the brain; shallow contributions are directed to the skin, concentrated on its color, texture, and stop there.

Among shallow contributions are what people who do think and reflect and seek to see the big picture even as in an abstract painting, consider nitpicking.

A lot of messages and thoughts expressed in messages by shallow contributors can be seen to consist of nothing but nitpicking.

But there is also one kind of shallow contributions which has the appearance of depth, but when you analyze their thought and logic content, they will turn out to be bereft of thought and logic.

Of these latters, I have in mind what I would put in the category of slogans.

What is a slogan? It is an utterance which is made by someone recognized by others to have depth knowledge and relevancy of words, useful to the whole of society and mankind. And these others will repeat the utterance to themselves and to people outside themselves. Yes, like a mantra.

The author of a slogan is an advocate of an idea or a movement, and people who take the slogan into their hearts and minds are his followers. He could be a politician, a businessman, or a guru from the East.

Now, very important in a slogan is not the conceptual content but the emotional appeal. Sometimes it comes forth -- and often and almost all the time -- to possess a conceptual pith; but when you examine it carefully with your reason, which is the only faculty we have to examine anything at all conceptually, and you cultivate the virtue of honesty to your own reasoning faculty, the light will dawn upon you very clearly that it is all emotion and no reason.

For example, here are what I consider to be two slogans you can meet time and again when you are reading expositions of Buddhist doctrine:

Item -- The Buddha never claimed to possess The Truth.

Item -- There is no purpose of life, though, except being present, aware and enjoy your time here.

Their intention even though the one uttering them don't know about the intention -- because he is a follower and not supposed to think but to take everything and anything from his master as pure unalloyed genuine truth and wisdom, their intention is to dazzle you but leave you if you reason meticulously only in dazzle, feeling that there must be something in them of some grave import. You have just fallen into the trap, for being thus induced into bedazzlement.

Is there any grave import in them? Yes, the fallacy of answering a question with another question, in this case not a leading question but only intended to, as I said, dazzle you.

Maybe that is the purpose of the author, to dazzle his disciples and thereby render them bedazzled like himself, so that neither he nor his followers have contributed anything of use to mankind, except to go about in life in total bedazzlement.

But there is a reward here: they feel so profound, unlike the masses of unbedazzled mankind.


Yrreg

 

[Dancing David]

Gee Yrreg, as a master slogan maker I suppose you can judge Ryokan, but as for the shallow thing.

Well-that's a deep subject.

 

[yrreg]

Silly premises of Buddhists.

I have not searched into dictionaries for the meanings of the word, 'silly'. But off-hand from my stock knowledge of vocabulary -- which is not as extensive as I would want it to be in order to communicate with more subtlety and precision (for words are the only instrument we have for communicating if even at all), the word 'silly' is usually applied to kids who do things which they should know better if they were acting from evidence and logic, that they are behaving in a silly manner.

Now, that is a vicious circle I have just committed: promising to give the meaning of a word and then using it to convey the meaning or description carried by the word.

So, I will just list two examples of silly things kids do because they just prefer to indulge in absurd imagination for fun, or they are not accustomed to think and act from evidence and logic -- when these latter kids grow up without that skill they will continue with a lot of silly premises for a life philosophy, or accept them from others with a veneer for depth and wisdom.

Example #1: competition to see who will empty the sea faster,
Example #2: playing dead and still acting alive and moving, ​

We can see that kids act silly because of silly premises, namely, ones that do not hold any substance in evidence and in logic.



At the start of this thread on 'purpose of life +Buddhism", I produced an excerpt from an informative website, RelgionFacts, which tells us the following about the purpose of life in Buddhism and therefore also I may conclude, for Buddhists.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1594643&postcount=1​

In Buddhism, the primary purpose of life is to end suffering.

( snip snip snip )

This is done by recognizing the impermanence of all things and freeing oneself from attachment to these things. This will lessen suffering and eventually end the cycle of rebirth. These teachings are expressed most concisely in the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, which together form the foundation of belief for all branches of Buddhism.

( snip snip snip )

(http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhis...fs/purpose.htm )​

This will lessen suffering and eventually end the cycle of rebirth. These teachings are expressed most concisely in the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, which together form the foundation of belief for all branches of Buddhism.

​

There are several silly premises on the above statement, because they are not founded on evidence and logic. I will just bring out two:

First, the cycle of rebirth, that is a silly premise, because to the present there has not been any systematic, methodical proof or demonstration of the cycle of rebirth of say, Yrreg, or Ryokan, or Dancing David.

Second, the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Noble Path will lessen suffering, there is no evidence nor logic in the diminution of suffering on subjects accepting these hypotheses and guidelines consequential from them; the suffering is still in the subjects but for their self-conviction in their mind that they are freed: because they think that they have acquired the mental habit and the emotional equanimity of not attending to their suffering.*​

That is why I see that Buddhists here who claim to be skeptics in the best tradition of the JREF are not acting according to the gist of skepticism as propounded by skeptics like the founder of this site, James Randi, or other prominent skeptics like him, those for example in the Committee for the Scientific Investigation..., the CSICOP.

If they would only abstain from their silly premises, and start thinking from evidence and logic as is inculcated by the founders-skeptics in the JREF and in the CSICOP, then they will at least realize their silly premises and only engage in them for fun, not for a life philosophy and world-view.


[ I think a non-emotive and academic phrase for the word 'silly’ should be ‘non-evidential and illogical'. Please read 'silly' in that essential context. ]


Yrreg

*I must concede however that the moralistic axioms -- prescinding from the silly premises in the Four and in the Eight -- are however common behavioral impositions of civilized society from the dawn of human settlement existence: no need for Buddha and Buddhists to tell us about them

 

[yrreg]

A skeptic looks at Buddhists and Buddhism.

I still can't reconcile the adoption of Buddhism by skeptics here and their profession of skepticism, the kind as propounded by the founder of this JREF website, James Randi, and also the founders of the CSICOP, i.e., Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

Because the unspoken premises that are the grounds of Buddhism which make Buddhism possible as an ideology are not founded on reason, evidence, and logic, again: not the kind propounded by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and in this website, the JREF.

You will ask me what are the kinds of reason, evidence, and logic employed by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and the JREF? I will answer, that kind that is at the basis of critical thinking.

You will persist to demand that I give an exposition of what I understand by critical thinking, so that you can determine whether the critical thinking that I know and use is the real critical thinking that is the true kind practiced by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and the JREF.

Your ploy seems to be what I would consider the recourse to endless definition and identification of an idea, which is a fallacy in argumentation, of which my exchanges with Buddhists here in this JREF forum is fraught with from their part.

Anyway, the critical thinking that is engaged in by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and the JREF is the kind where you can know about by entering into their search box the phrase "critical thinking".

I will enter then this phrase in the search box of the CSICOP and also in the JREF, and report back here.

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

Here is a very comprehensive article on critical thinking from the CSICOP in

http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-02/thinking.html​

Critical Thinking
What Is It Good for?
(In Fact, What Is It?)​

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

As regards the JREF website, I came to a lot of materials on critical thinking by entering the phrase into its search box, but could not find any one article concentrated on critical thinking. The materials in the JREF are not chosen and organized the same way as in the CSICOP. The JREF website is focused on its author, James Randi, and his thinking and writing and his activities.

Here is the website of the JREF:

http://www.randi.org. ​

Enter the phrase "critical thinking" in the search box and find out for yourselves what rich materials there are on critical thinking -- but before I could reach the end of my page of 100 hits there is still no single article on critical thinking.

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

The beauty of doing research with Google is that in the process you get to know the gist of an issue.

In the case of critical thinking, the gist of the issue I have discovered which has been with me all the time in my exercise of critical thinking is the following, in my own words:

Critical thinking is opposed to authority thinking; for example, the thinking of Buddhists here who always refer you to the authority of the Buddha, or more precisely Gautama, their most enlightened Buddha, demanding that you read and read more and more on ancients texts purporting to tell mankind about the genuine, authentic, true, absolutely unalloyed doctrines of Buddha, meaning the most enlightened one, Gautama.​

I know now with pinpoint exactitude what is the mistake of the Buddhists here in this JREF forum, to wit: they are not skeptics in the concept of the founders and proponents of critical skepticism, owing to their acceptance of and dependence on a human authority, instead of reason, evidence, and logic.

When you read their messages on Buddhism, and notwithstanding that they claim to be skeptics, they will eventually fall on the authority of the Buddha, i.e., Gautama, the most enlightened Buddha and in effect the last definitive final one, after whom all Buddhas before him and after him are aspiring to fashion themselves.

Or you might be referred to a latter day enlightened human guru, like for example, Thich Nhat Hahn who -- forgive me for this irreverence -- teaches how to live life to Westerners, the Buddhist way, instead of doing the mission with his own countrymen in Vietnam.

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

I am starting a new thread, doing critically skeptical comments on the website of the Real World Buddhism,

http://www.livingdharma.org/RealWorldBuddhism.html, ​

starting with their page on Some Common Misconceptions about Buddhism in America,

http://www.livingdharma.org/Misconceptions.html​

I will be occupying myself with trying to locate the uncritical assumptions of their explanations on the common misconceptions about Buddhism in America.


I hope it will be an absorbing enterprise for me.



Yrreg