The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Firstly, You claim that it would be impossible to find the original teachings of the Buddha yet "we"(whoever 'we' is) considers all of the gospels to be the teachings of Buddha? Ok. Who is "We" and why do "we" consider all of the gospels to be the teachings of Buddha when they can't be proven to be?

"We" as in Buddhists, along with people who look into Buddhism. Well, it is the same with Christianity. We cannot hope to find the exact speeches given word for word. Such transcripts simply do not exist. However, we do have the gospels written by students, and other cool people. We call these things teachings of Buddha for the same reason we call things teachings of Christ, they are ascribed to him.

Secondly, You claim that one can be a "Buddhist" if they follow the 4 truths and 8fold path? What about other teachings including the 10 unwholesome actions, Prajñā and Śīla or possibly including Patimokkha or 10 precepts?

The Four Truths and Eightfold Path are simply the most basic and widely spread beliefs. So they are generally considered the discriminating factor in determining Buddhists from others. Also, most people only have five precepts.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

within my post i granted you the narrow constraints of the Abrahamic monothestic god which you wish to provide an absolute value for. And yet even this given definition is insufficient for a generic term.

Elaborate.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

"We" as in Buddhists, along with people who look into Buddhism. Well, it is the same with Christianity. We cannot hope to find the exact speeches given word for word. Such transcripts simply do not exist. However, we do have the gospels written by students, and other cool people. We call these things teachings of Buddha for the same reason we call things teachings of Christ, they are ascribed to him.

Firstly, Anyone trying to discern the "teachings of Jesus" from those that probably weren't would firstly not include the teachings of the authors of the gospels.

Secondly, I don't consider any of the people that you are mentioning "cool".

The Four Truths and Eightfold Path are simply the most basic and widely spread beliefs. So they are generally considered the discriminating factor in determining Buddhists from others. Also, most people only have five precepts.

So why not the Prajñā, Śīla or Patimokkha? Why not include them as well? Are these the teachings of Buddha? If not, what worth are they in Buddhism apart from any odd teachings? If they are then shouldn't they be followed just as anything else the Buddha taught?


Here's another question that hasn't been answered. Why follow the teachings of Buddha at all? What makes you think he was right about anything? What was he right about? Assuming you can even identify his teachings, it would have amounted to a lot more than the Four Truths and Eightfold Path.

So how is the Buddha special apart from any other philosopher? Why call yourself a "Buddhist" simply because you agree with a few of the things he taught? One does not call themselves a "Millist" if they follow the teachings of John Stewart Mill or a "Saganist" if they follow what Carl Sagan wrote.

 

[Ryokan]

Oh no, you guys summoned Yrreg!

 

[onemind]

What, you mean like Ted Haggard?

Exactly, known by all as a semi retarded hypocrite.

I thought this was a skeptic site, whats with all the friggin buddhists?

You guys have swallowed a bronze age superstition hook line and sinker.

Believe and call yourselves what you like.

 

[Taffer]

That's assuming their definition...

1. Has meaning
2. Is consistent

Otherwise you can't have a meaningful conversation with any word or definition.



Which is it?

Their definition has different meanings to different people.

Or are you claiming to be the only one who knows the 'true' definition?

 

[Taffer]

i think dustin works within his own Copernican framework - which claims a very special body around which the earth revolves

Classic.

 

[Taffer]

Incorrect. "Dancing David"'s post was full of nonsensical gibberish and contradictions and was nearly impossible to decipher. Notice how "Taffer" has failed to give a 2 paragraph summary of David's post. I doubt he ever will.

Did YOU understand David's post? Could YOU provide a 2 paragraph summary explaining the post in question? I doubt it.

I don't need to know, Dustin, do I? DD has provided a perfectly good summery.

Oh, and "Argument from silence" is a fallacy, just thought you'd like to know.

 

[Taffer]

I find that hard to believe, with Pure Land being the biggest denomination in Chinese Buddhism.

Oh, you are quite correct about that. I should have been more specific. "When I studied ancient Chinese Buddhism, I interpreted the teachings to be metaphorical". Many, many, others do not, of course. I shouldn't make such blanket statements in the future.

 

[Taffer]

So your a buddhist that likes my site and doesnt practice buddhism or read much of the pali canon. Why call yourself a buddhist? Just a fashion statement?



Not yet, they are on my reading list and will come in very handy.

Why waste time arguing semantics and protecting your ego? Let go

Damn, i'm more buddhist than buddhists.

Someone can call themselves whatever they like. He follows the Four Nobel Truths. I think this more then allows for his label "Buddhist".

 

[Taffer]

You're making no sense. "Generic absolute value"? We can define "God" pretty easily.

God-[SIZE=-1]the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.[/SIZE]

Wow that's the most simplistic, ignorant, definition I have ever seen. Go spout that to a believer and see what they say.

I refuted his summary just like I refuted (what I understood of) his initial post.

Illusions of grandure.

 

[Taffer]

Yet there's a big more to being a Christian than thinking Jesus is your savior and a bit more to being a Buddhist than following simply the 4 noble truths.

Why, because you say so?

 

[Taffer]

I'm done responding to you until you either learn English or get a spell checker and spend more time thinking about what you're going to type and copy editing it before you post it. I can't spend the time deciphering your gibberish just to encounter your blatant contradictions and inconsistencies.

Argument by spelling? "You can't spell, so your argument is clearly false"?

 

[Taffer]

English is your first language (I'm assuming) and since that's the case then the so called "Goofy archaic nature" of the english language shouldn't be a problem. When English is all you grew up knowing then you should be used to it. You just need to work on your spelling or get a spell-checker and spend more time overlooking what you type before posting it. I don't usually comment on spelling since my spelling isn't the best but yours is so bad it's nearly incomprehensible.

More argument by spelling.

Go take a basic logic course, Dustin.

 

[Taffer]

Exactly, known by all as a semi retarded hypocrite.

I thought this was a skeptic site, whats with all the friggin buddhists?

You guys have swallowed a bronze age superstition hook line and sinker.

Believe and call yourselves what you like.

As I said earlier, there are many interpretations of the Four Nobel Truths and the Eight Fold Path which contain no 'superstitious' elements whatsoever.

Just because you cannot understand it, does not make it false.

 

[Dancing David]

Not yet, they are on my reading list and will come in very handy.

Why waste time arguing semantics and protecting your ego? Let go

Damn, i'm more buddhist than buddhists.

I argue quite frequently, but the process of debate has many merits to me, I learn much along the way. I have changed my mind a number of times on the board.

The debate things is a character habit that is deeply ingrained.

Thanks for your citation! I enjoyed your site as well.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm the queen of england.

Liz Mo Be There!

As a Windsorfarian I am in worship mode!

 

[Dancing David]

Hello all ! I've seemed to have missed out here! Let's see...

Dancing David attempted to answer all of your questions, Dustin. However, you interjected a lot of childish, worthless comments. I understand him perfectly, so I don't think the issue is with him . Let me attempt your challenge...

(Note, proper wording not used to make it easier to understand, and because I'm cool like that)

Ahem, a long time ago, in a peninsula far far away... There was (allegedly) a cool dude who we call Buddha. We got our first edition Buddha Bible about five hundred years after his death, which was based upon an oral tradition. This is the most largely recognized text. Over the next centuries a few more sects rose up along with some extra-biblical gospels.

With this in mind, one must realize that it would be very difficult (nigh-impossible) to find the exact, precise, original teachings of the Buddha. Keeping this in mind, we consider all the gospels to be "the teachings of the Buddha." There are a wide variety of beliefs among Buddhists. Generally, one can be considered a "Buddhist" if they follow the four truths and the eightfold path of coolness. In doing so, they are following "the teachings of the Buddha."

Ta da ! What do ya think?

Oh, and Ryokan, so you are Theravada? Could you briefly detail your views on Rebirth and Karma?

I shall need your services in the future thanks!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Firstly, Anyone trying to discern the "teachings of Jesus" from those that probably weren't would firstly not include the teachings of the authors of the gospels.

Secondly, I don't consider any of the people that you are mentioning "cool".

Okay... You don't consider the gospels to include the teachings of Christ?

So why not the Prajñā, Śīla or Patimokkha? Why not include them as well? Are these the teachings of Buddha? If not, what worth are they in Buddhism apart from any odd teachings? If they are then shouldn't they be followed just as anything else the Buddha taught?

Yes, those are also teachings of Buddha. However the are not as wide spread, especially not Patimokkha. The four truths and eightfold path are simply the most basic of the basics, and pertain most to daily life (One might also include the five precepts).

Here's another question that hasn't been answered. Why follow the teachings of Buddha at all? What makes you think he was right about anything? What was he right about? Assuming you can even identify his teachings, it would have amounted to a lot more than the Four Truths and Eightfold Path.

Because when you know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' you enter on and abide in them.

So how is the Buddha special apart from any other philosopher? Why call yourself a "Buddhist" simply because you agree with a few of the things he taught? One does not call themselves a "Millist" if they follow the teachings of John Stewart Mill or a "Saganist" if they follow what Carl Sagan wrote.

If you follow what Mill said you are utilitarian (I think). If you follow what Sagan said you are probably a Skeptic or Rationalist. Remember, the root word of Buddhism is not Buddha. It is 'budh', meaning 'to know or to awaken'. And that is just the name that Westerners decided to give it.

 

[Solus]

Someone who has put up with suffering? Who hasn't?

The other major religions do not say suffering is a part of life in the major tenets.