The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[Taffer]

Y'know, Dustin, I had no problem following what Dancing David was saying. Are you now going to argue that if you can't understand it, it is wrong?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Then it would have the meaning of 'someone who calls themselves a buddhist' or 'someone who says they follow the path of the buddha'.

The former is a circular statement, the latter is also circular since you previously said that the only teachings of Buddha are teachings that are put into his mouth by others. If this isn't the case then we're limited to old texts based on verbal traditions that as you also say most likely aren't the teachings of Buddha either?

What is the eightfold path?

Why?

Alleged Historical Buddha.

Then they are not useful, And so what?
An eternity for something that has no soul and no self. I doubt it.

If his teachings are of no use then why would anyone label themselves a Buddhist?

I like cherries more than snot.

Read much on how to determine the original source in history in your sarcasm class?

How about you tell me.

The eightfold path.
The people who call themselves buddhists.
"The absence of things" Vs. "people who call themselves buddhists."

Apart from "People who call themselves Buddhists" which is a pointless phrase empty of meaning, You say that the eightfold path is what makes one a Buddhist? This not only contradicts your earlier statements, It also is very telling about what you believe of Buddhism.

Moreover, What about the Four Noble Truths? Or the Middle Way? Or the Śīla or the 10 unwholesome actions? None of those other things matter? Just the eightfold path?

Ah, Wikipedia, i suppose if you have only one source it is not a bad one.

And?

 

[Dancing David]

There is no self

Refering to the five heaps as a 'buddhist'?

These are my heaps and I name them Bob the Buddhist!

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I see your citation fails to mention that these "rules" are universal for all Buddhists.

"Universal for all Buddhists"? What does this even mean? Either these are truths or they are not. If they are truths then they should be universal for everyone alive. IF they are not truths then they should not be.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Please note that the rules mentioned here, except the five precepts, are monastic rules, not rules for the man in the street. It would be devastating to humanity if every one of us practiced chastity

Also note, as Wikipeda does, that none of these rules start with 'thou shalt not'. They're just guidelines to a better life.

Explain to me how refraining from sleeping on a high bed, dancing, or eating at times other than sunrise to noon can improve your life. Dancing is healthy, You should eat small meals all throughout the day.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I looked at Buddhism years ago and it is more appealing to a person who has had to put up with suffering. The problem with Buddhism like all the other religions though is the supernatural aspects, that's the part I just could never buy into, some of the philosophy is nice though. I'd take Buddhism over christianity if I had to chose a religion that much is sure.

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

 

[Taffer]

"Universal for all Buddhists"? What does this even mean? Either these are truths or they are not. If they are truths then they should be universal for everyone alive. IF they are not truths then they should not be.

So your argument is "I do not understand them, thus they are wrong"?

 

[c4ts]

They have Buddha's tooth in Sri Lanka. It's under a big pile of gold where nobody can see it.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So we can only use words by how they are in a dictionary?

What's the alternative? Making up words that no one understands and have no common meaning?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Y'know, Dustin, I had no problem following what Dancing David was saying. Are you now going to argue that if you can't understand it, it is wrong?

So explain it to me in 2 paragraphs and let's see if "Dancing David" agrees that it is what he meant.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So your argument is "I do not understand them, thus they are wrong"?

No. Read what I posted. Here's my argument concerning the precepts: Either these are truths or they are not. If they are truths then they should be universal for everyone alive. IF they are not truths then they should not be universal for everyone alive. One or the other.

 

[Taffer]

What's the alternative? Making up words that no one understands and have no common meaning?

If you give a definition, you can have a meaningful conversation with any word, Dustin. You do realise that "argument by definition" is wrong because of this, right?

 

[Taffer]

No. Read what I posted. Here's my argument concerning the precepts: Either these are truths or they are not. If they are truths then they should be universal for everyone alive. IF they are not truths then they should not be universal for everyone alive. One or the other.

And your point is?

 

[Dancing David]

So your defense of Buddhism is ignore questions asked about it and ask your own questions?

I asked you where you got your information and who stated it. That is part of the answer. i see you have a need for defined ordering of things. That's fine by me.
My post does answer the questions, but perhaps not for you. If you wish to uindetsand than you will. I am rather plainly spoken.

So?

The meaning is left for you to choose.

How is this relevant?

When discussing what the buddha is alleged to have said, it is helpful to look at where the words came from.

How is this relevant?

It seems obvious to me, many things are said to have been said by the buddha. Sources vary.

How is this relevant?

there different traditions in what is reffered to as the teaching of the buddha. The Theravada follows the Pali canon, the Mahayana follows many sources including the Pali Canon.

So the teachings of the Buddha are the teachings that the Buddha taught?

What a concept!

One tradition says that the Pali canon is the teaching of the buddha and others who were his close associates. The other traditions are less clear in the history of the teachings, some are older than others.

I am sorry that you feel someone should point to one thing and call it the teachings of the buddha. that is like saying "All birds fly north is the spring, those that fly other directions are not birds".

So?

So there are ways to try and figure out what the original teaching was. Or make a good guess at best.

So?

"So two and a half thousand years later we are left with what? A set of documents, one that is an edited and collated version of an oral tradition written two thousand years ago. Then there is a huge variety of documents written at various times in various places."

Is a question and a statement of the apparent facts.

So none of the teachings in Buddhism actually came from the Buddha?

That is a suprise? not to me. Do you think Omeru actualy composed the Iliad, or just wrote it down?

So?

That statement was clear. Perhaps you should ask your mother what it means.

So Just that?

i said what i do.

You're contradicting yourself over and over.

Some buddhists think of the Pali canon as the teachings of the buddha, others take other sources.

That is not me contradicting myself, that is a statement of fact.

This makes no sense. Either there is an accepted teaching of Buddhism or there isn't. If there is then those who follow those teachings are Buddhists. If there isn't then "Buddhism" is a meaningless term.

Are you a catholic or something? That is a rather narrow defintion of what comprises a group of people. I think you should be prepared for reality to not meet your demands.
There is a not a single accepted teaching of the buddha, big whoop. Welceome to reality.

So people have to conform to your desires, prepare for disappointment.

So why would anyone want to call themselves a "Buddhist" again?

Sorry to disappoint you but the reasons will vary. isn't that grand!

Just because they say so eh?

I am not one to tell other people what they should call themselves. You can glory in false distinctions if you wish.

I thought you just said that what makes someone a Buddhist is calling themselves a Buddhist? Taking that back now?

Yeah so, a defintion can vary.

"Constancy is the hobgoblin of the small minded"
-Lao Tzu (allegedly)

Cite them then.

I have and I will, but just because you demnad it?

I think not.

The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by T.N. Hahn is a good place to start.

So in the end the Buddha contradicted all of his teachings and told his followers to follow themselves?

So?

he told them to examine the teaching all along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutra


Either the teachings of Buddha contain truth or they do not. Either they should be followed as a religion or they should not. Simply following a few aspects of Buddhism doesn't make one a Buddhist anymore than doing unto others as you would have them do unto you makes you a Christian.

Please do tell people how to conduct themselves and expect the world to meet your expectations.

Your path is yours. If you wish to define a buddhist differently than please do so.

And if you can't discern fact from fiction in what were really the teachings of Buddhism then you're left with a hodgepodge of stuff that are self contradicting and contain little meaning. (A lot like your posts)

Please tell me how I should discern fact from fiction. When there are two and a half thousand years in between. I shall then see if your guidelines are similar.

So does Buddhism in general.

Fine by me, if you have looked at it and found it wanting, then there are other paths.

That is fine.

You didn't answer my question.

Did Jesus wear a purse? was a purse worn by jesus? Did he use a backpack.

You can figure out the rest,.

Uhh...





You really need to work on your spelling and internal consistency. Your post is full of back tracking and contradictions that I really have no idea what your position is now anymore than I did when I first posted it.

You need to learn to think for yourself before you pretend to engage in critical thinking.

I can't help your ignorance and lack of effort.

I would rather engage in critical thinking than be able to spell.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If you give a definition, you can have a meaningful conversation with any word, Dustin. You do realise that "argument by definition" is wrong because of this, right?

That's assuming their definition...

1. Has meaning
2. Is consistent

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

And your point is?

Which is it?

 

[Dancing David]

The former is a circular statement, the latter is also circular since you previously said that the only teachings of Buddha are teachings that are put into his mouth by others. If this isn't the case then we're limited to old texts based on verbal traditions that as you also say most likely aren't the teachings of Buddha either?

I think you need to read more carefully. Where did I say that? Hmmm. "Some say"..., ah that is so clear and definitive.

I said things the way i see them.

Reality is what it is, isn't that grand!

Circular defintions are the nature of a self referencing set of symbols used to communicate.

Why?

You asked something like what is the meaning of buddhism, or what purpose it had.

"I'm saying Buddhism as a movement is worthless. "

and I am saying that the worth of buddhism is in the eightfold path. I have two questions, is english your native laguage? And Do you think concretly? I do.

If his teachings are of no use then why would anyone label themselves a Buddhist?

they may be found to be useful to those who call themselves buddhist.

How about you tell me.

You will learn more by figuring it out, ask your mother.

Apart from "People who call themselves Buddhists" which is a pointless phrase empty of meaning, You say that the eightfold path is what makes one a Buddhist? This not only contradicts your earlier statements, It also is very telling about what you believe of Buddhism.

I have not contradicted myself, show me where I have? Please.

Gosh Dustin, have you really looked at a real dictionary? Why are there multiple defintions under a single word?

Ask someone you trust.

I believe what I beliecve about buddhism, of my posts 3,000 are probably on the subject.

Moreover, What about the Four Noble Truths? Or the Middle Way? Or the Śīla or the 10 unwholesome actions? None of those other things matter? Just the eightfold path?

The four truths are not essential, the sila are a description of the eightfold path.

I state what i believe to be useful, the rest is up to other people.

In my estimation it is the eightfold path where the rubber meets the road.

And?

Your question has no answer.

I made a statement.

 

[Dancing David]

We're using a language to communicate. This is the English language. In the "English language" we use specific words to communicate specific ideas. In order for any language to have any meaning it must have definitions for words. The Dictionary uses common usage to define words. The common usage for the words in question was how I defined them given this context.

If you want to make up definitions for words, be my guest. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously or even understand what you're saying. A word must have a specific number of definitions per context. If a word has numerous definitions for a specific context then the word is pretty much useless and ambiguous. [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

That is foolish, you must be young or a control freak.

Simple test, how many words have multiple defintions? Prepare for disappointment Pondhopper.

 

[Dancing David]

"Universal for all Buddhists"? What does this even mean? Either these are truths or they are not. If they are truths then they should be universal for everyone alive. IF they are not truths then they should not be.

More bold statements Fluke Skyknocker.

Prepare for disappointment. Truth is your finger pointing at the moon.

Something that should be true for every one. How many people do you know?

 

[Dancing David]

They have Buddha's tooth in Sri Lanka. It's under a big pile of gold where nobody can see it.

Oh oh, I saw a picture, it looks like an elephant tooth!

 

[Dancing David]

What's the alternative? Making up words that no one understands and have no common meaning?

Ah, wisdom is found in not conflating yourself with everyone.

Common meanings can be multiple.