You have a choice. The first is to either insist on complete logical consistency and remain absolutely quiet on the topic. This is an option that various traditions do take. However, that's not a terribly helpful position to take when people are requesting some kind of explanation on life, the universe and everything. Mattus was requesting some kind of explanation, which is a perfectly natural human need. I offered first a paragraph explaining how all attempts at explanation will be inadequate, and then a subsequent paragraph which (from the same person, who recognises this limitation) is offering something for the human mind to use as a way of thinking about it. Offering nothing is an option, but pretty useless.
Actually, Matt was asking for a definition. If something cannot be defined, it would be far wiser to make that statement and stop there. Failing to do so is where mysticism generally runs into trouble. Sometimes offering nothing really is the best answer. Mu.
Back to your example, stating that your god
* is not limited to relativism and then promptly using relativistic terms to define it only makes it clear that the speaker does not understand what a "god" is any more than anyone else. Definition by analogy is one thing, definition by assertion is another.
* - "Your" in the general sense, not the personal in this case.
Still wrong. Brahman is not an ultimate end goal, Moksha is. Brahman is what I told you earlier.
I can accept that this is a bit of a semantic quibble at this point, but for Hindus, joining Brahman is the goal,
moksha is the adjective describing that goal. Jainism is the religion where
moksha stands on its own as an end goal.
If you go back and read a bit closer you'll see that I never mentioned rebirth; only reincarnation. So how could I have created some confusion between the two? It seems to me like you're imagining things in order to try to bolster what position you have.
No, I was the one making the original comparison between reincarnation and rebirth. You then stated you had no wish to discuss reincarnation, but failed to acknowledge that the fact that there are different terms used by the two religions with very different implications demonstrates yet another difference that is a "big theological point" rather than an "emphasis".
I'm not at high school being given an essay assignment. Buddhism clearly has a view of phenomenal existence as ultimately illusory. If the word 'maya' is not usually used to describe this, then that's no surprise, seeing as the original language of Buddhism was Pali, rather than the Sanskrit of the Hinduism of the time.
If you are not willing to substantiate your points, fine.
You're right about one thing at least. England and China do share the concept of cooking (even though they use different words for it).
I would debate that was passes for "cooking" in England deserves the term, but admit that I am biased in favor of flavor.
[qute]Why would you come to that conclusion? I can only think it's so you can let people know that you
have. Which is posing.[/quote]
No, it is to determine what references we have in common. Since you do not seem willing to back up your points with references, I need to know what you are familiar with in order to take shortcuts. If you are familiar with source documents and the work of previous scholars, I can refer to their points without having to reword all of their arguments.
Sure, I've read quite a lot of Suzuki, years ago. He wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (joke).
Good one.
Suzuki, at least in his writings, is nothing special, at least in my opinion.
I found them to be very accurate, at least in the sections where I could compare my own translations. Based on these, as well as the work of others, I found it much easier to determine what was practiced in a religion as opposed to was originally written.
Sure, he isn't all fluffy-wuffy in his writing, but he doesn't end up contradicting himself every other paragraph, and in the few cases he mentions real-world principles, he doesn't get them backwards.
And for your comment towards six7s regarding why I would think about religion, it is the study of the differences between words and deeds that helps me to understand the human condition much more than any navel-gazing.
