Is life all that great?

[OxygenMan]

I would need to see a reference for that, please.

rossum

“The Supreme mahaparinirvana is perfect, permanent, calm, and illuminating. Ignorant people miscall it death, while heretics hold that it is annihilation.” - The Sutra of Hui-neng

Since the patriarch mentions “heretics” that believe it is annihilation, it would seem that there are, or at least were, Buddhist sects which regarded it as such.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jimmy

**Is that really from the Catholic Encyclopedia? That passes for scholarship? I thought the Catholic Encyclopedia was better than that. **

What is your problem with it as scholarship?

 

[jimmy]

jimmy

**Is that really from the Catholic Encyclopedia? That passes for scholarship? I thought the Catholic Encyclopedia was better than that. **

What is your problem with it as scholarship?

My problem with it is that it is awful scholarship. The whole attitude and approach is a problem. It’s overly polemical, and it looks like a college kid wrote it the night before it was due. I don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism, but I know that isn’t a very good explanation. I would expect more from an encyclopedia.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jimmy

**My problem with it is that it is awful scholarship. The whole attitude and approach is a problem. It’s overly polemical, and it looks like a college kid wrote it the night before it was due. I don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism, but I know that isn’t a very good explanation. I would expect more from an encyclopedia. **

C.F. Aiken, the author of the article, had written a book comparing Buddhism with Christianity. I don’t know if the encyclopedia article (much longer than the excerpt indicated above) was perhaps a whole chapter from the book. Naturally, the conclusion had to be drawn at the end of the book, so naturally he sums up in favor of Christianity. You see it as polemical. Perhaps it was. But the forum you are currently writing in is also polemical, and the remarks you have just made about Aiken also seem to me rather polemical.

What did you expect him to say? Something laudatory about a false religion? He told it like he saw it, and I applaud him for that. And I accept that you don’t know much about Buddhism and therefore are not in a position to judge the scholarship.

Reading the epistles of St. Paul, when they are polemical, must be rather painful for you?

 

[Edward_H]

But how do you get people to stop playing the game of secular life and seek God instead?

You need to be able to navigate between the secular topics and the eternal topics…but you can’t do this just with your words…you need to do it with your life…with deeds.

All our deeds need to have pleasing God as their purpose…in this way we sanctify our everyday life. We need to have a unity of life…where the secular is embedded in the supernatural.

There is a set of conversational topics we need to be well versed in…which on the surface may seem to have little to do with the supernatural.

Read this short article.

wdmr.org/sanctifying-our-conversations-with-other-minded-people/

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy

**My problem with it is that it is awful scholarship. The whole attitude and approach is a problem. It’s overly polemical, and it looks like a college kid wrote it the night before it was due. I don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism, but I know that isn’t a very good explanation. I would expect more from an encyclopedia. **

C.F. Aiken, the author of the article, had written a book comparing Buddhism with Christianity. I don’t know if the encyclopedia article (much longer than the excerpt indicated above) was perhaps a whole chapter from the book. Naturally, the conclusion had to be drawn at the end of the book, so naturally he sums up in favor of Christianity. You see it as polemical. Perhaps it was. But the forum you are currently writing in is also polemical, and the remarks you have just made about Aiken also seem to me rather polemical.

What did you expect him to say? Something laudatory about a false religion? He told it like he saw it, and I applaud him for that. And I accept that you don’t know much about Buddhism and therefore are not in a position to judge the scholarship.

Reading the epistles of St. Paul, when they are polemical, must be rather painful for you?

There is a difference between an internet forum and an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedias aren’t supposed to be polemical. It is supposed give the facts, without personal commentary. When it starts talking about ‘third rate’ scholars you know the value of it as an encyclopedia article.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jimmy

There is a difference between an internet forum and an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedias aren’t supposed to be polemical. It is supposed give the facts, without personal commentary.

This simply is not true. Encyclopedia articles often take a stand on the merits of certain historical movements and the way those movements should be viewed. You might as well forget ever reading any encyclopedia article (Catholic or otherwise) if you want them all to be so bland as you seem to prefer.

But clearly you like polemics or you would not be here. So I’m a little confused about why you object to that particular article. What sentence or sentences really rubbed you the wrong way? You are welcome to cut and paste for discussion purposes.