No Consciousness or Perception in Buddhist Nirvana?

[Jaberwocky]

How do you know this? They were only human and may have been mistaken about their claims of external help. Humans can, and do, make mistakes. How can I check that their claims are correct and not an error?

You would have to ask them to demonstrate something out of this world, yes.

In the case of Abraham, the belief was personal. It didn’t matter if you thought Abraham was telling the truth. Abraham to the best of his knowledge knew it was a voice from beyond due to the promise given to him and the subsequent fulfillment of it (Isaac).

Therefore his descendents, through the line of Jacob, always trusted in God through other prophets that came along as well.

What about the external assistance? Eve had a conversation with a spiritual being before eating the fruit. Was that spiritual being trustworthy? How do we know that the external assistance was telling the truth?

You do not know if the external assistant is telling the truth. But it is reasonable to trust him/her.

Let me give you an example.

If you had a choice between taking the advise of two people regarding a physical pain in the chest, you would listen to a Doctor over a Carpenter.

That is reasonable because the Doctor is the more likely to know. In fact, to listen to the Carpenter at all is unreasonable.

Same thing applies here. Buddha was just a man and as such wouldn’t even know if he came to know or become aware of a higher consciousness. It may just be Schizophrenia. So Buddha is like a carpenter.

Now you may again get a little confused whether or not Abraham too was schizophrenic so I thought I should answer that. He probably had good reason to wonder till God gave him a son in his late age. Before that, I am certain he had many other assistance from God that lead him to conclude that God was certainly powerful and not some voice in his head or some powerless spiritual being. We could get in to that more but this is not a analysis of Abraham (which is a great topic I would love to discuss but this is not the thread for it).

The core point here, which shouldn’t be missed by you or anyone, is that to believe someone regarding things of the beyond, you must have a reason to think them from beyond. If they already admit they are from this world or the evidence to think them from beyond is insufficient, then by all means the reasonable thing to do is REJECT.

 

[rossum]

You would have to ask them to demonstrate something out of this world, yes.

The Buddha performed miracles, as did various Bodhisattvas. Vimalakirti fed 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice.

In the case of Abraham, the belief was personal. It didn’t matter if you thought Abraham was telling the truth.

What reason do you have for trusting the man Abraham over the man Gotama? Both were men.

You do not know if the external assistant is telling the truth.

Correct. You need some other method to determine truth.

But it is reasonable to trust him/her.

You trust Lucifer just because he is a spiritual being? Strange. Both in Buddhism and in Christianity there are spiritual beings who are definitely not to be trusted.

rossum

 

[Jaberwocky]

The Buddha performed miracles, as did various Bodhisattvas. Vimalakirti fed 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice.

So I have heard. But most of these sources are from well beyond the living memory of these individuals.

Even if we were to temporarily forget about that issue and grant that, they are also not that special because the individuals did not claim them as proof that God was helping them. Rather, they still very certainly claimed they were human. Do you see the problem?

What reason do you have for trusting the man Abraham over the man Gotama? Both were men.

I don’t trust Abraham apriori to being Christian

I know you perhaps want to try and make this in to “look, you are doing the same thing game” which is nice but to do so you have to first understand that we don’t start with Abraham but from Christ.

It is also important to understand that the conclusion to arrive at after realizing that Christianity is just as unreasonable is not that Buddhism is therefore right. Just wanted to make that clear because your argumentation so far seems to be aimed at that.

Correct. You need some other method to determine truth.

Sure. Christians find that out through their personal relationship with Christ. He helps one out, performs miracles and other things.

But the initial assent is reasonable because he is your best bet. It’s like having a doctor who might give you wrong medication. Would it be reasonable to not take medicine from your doctor because he may have given you the wrong medication? NO.

You only need to be reasonable in choosing who to take medication from. That is find a DOCTOR instead of a Carpenter.

You trust Lucifer just because he is a spiritual being? Strange. Both in Buddhism and in Christianity there are spiritual beings who are definitely not to be trusted.

?? Christians don’t trust Lucifer? No one can even know if he actually exists unless they already subscribe to Christianity or he makes himself known to them directly.

This common ground thing doesn’t save Buddhism either, if that is your ploy now

 

[Servant19]

Jaberwocky, there is scholarly evidence aplenty to question the historical authenticity of the Gospels. You want to trust the Gospel narrators depictions of history, go ahead, but many many scholars don’t buy it.

It is increasingly known now that the Gospels were not written to provide historical FACTS, but rather to convey spiritual TRUTHS.

There is not one shred of evidence for the physical resurrection of Christ outside of the Gospel narratives, which are as I say littered with historical anomalies.

Secondly, you can call His resurrection “other-worldly” but resurrecting “other people” is just as valid in terms of other-worldliness, as was demonstrated by Apolonius of Tiana.

Maybe, invalidated miracles are not the best guide to judge the “other-worldly” attributes of a Divine Claimant?

 

[Emese]

That is actually inaccurate. The Resurrection is claimed to be historical. It is the basis of assent to Christianity.

If one were to say that they are uncertain if the resurrection is true, then they should not assent. The matter is that simple and has been said in Christian teaching many times (most recent one I can remember was in condemnation of modernism).

But all of this is missing the fact that you cannot assent without a good reason to think the source credible. Talking about the credibility of Christ doesn’t help boost up Buddha’s credibility, right?

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but what I’ve said is actually correct. There are many theories as to what might have happened to Jesus’ body, but historically speaking nobody really knows. I accept that you believe the christian teachings and I understand that this belief gives you enough grounds to except christianity as your personal “truth”, but you must not confuse facts with beliefs.

I am not here to argue the buddhist case, neither to defend christianity. However, one must realise that questioning the credibility of a religious leader ( e.g. Buddha) might appear to be offensive to some…you have to stop saying for example that Buddha was “just” a man. To many, he wasn’t “just” a man, and the same way you need to be aware that to some, Jesus was also “just” a man. One cannot put his/her personal beliefs above others.

This topic is about buddhism in the non-catholic religions section. This forum provides an opportunity to learn more about buddhism.

 

[Emese]

Jaberwocky, there is scholarly evidence aplenty to question the historical authenticity of the Gospels. You want to trust the Gospel narrators depictions of history, go ahead, but many many scholars don’t buy it.

It is increasingly known now that the Gospels were not written to provide historical FACTS, but rather to convey spiritual TRUTHS.

Very well said.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Jaberwocky, there is scholarly evidence aplenty to question the historical authenticity of the Gospels. You want to trust the Gospel narrators depictions of history, go ahead, but many many scholars don’t buy it.

As I indicated to you before, I and many others on this forum would be very happy to take you on in that regard. But that is irrelevant to the matter here.

All that is advanced here is that “no credibility = unreasonable to believe”.

It is increasingly known now that the Gospels were not written to provide historical FACTS, but rather to convey spiritual TRUTHS.

I am not sure which Scripture scholars you are speaking of. But you have to remember that there are two different types here. When we speak of facts, we should be looking Historians. NOT Scripture scholars.

To that regard, there are enough writers, especially today with the discovery of old manuscripts who confirm that Jesus has more historical evidence than a person like Ceasar.

But that again is not the point of this thread. I would kindly ask you to open a thread in the Scripture section and I am sure you and I would be able to learn much more about that specific topic.

There is not one shred of evidence for the physical resurrection of Christ outside of the Gospel narratives, which are as I say littered with historical anomalies.

You do realize that Apostles and the Church fathers are not just books, right?

Secondly, you can call His resurrection “other-worldly” but resurrecting “other people” is just as valid in terms of other-worldliness, as was demonstrated by Apolonius of Tiana.

Maybe, invalidated miracles are not the best guide to judge the “other-worldly” attributes of a Divine Claimant?

Have you studied the historical evidence for Apolonius of Tiana ? How many records of his existence and his deeds do you know that fall within living memory of his existence?

See, if I may suggest, we should stick to the part of this discussion that most people can understand rather than the part of verifying the actual evidence.

The claim put forth here does not require you to understand historical analysis and how one determines historical fact from fiction.

All that is said here is that a person claiming to know something from the beyond cannot be just a mere human and have obtained the knowledge by himself.

That is a rather simple statement that you don’t need to be a historian to figure out. Just because someone presented a circular system doesn’t make it reasonable for you to believe in as I highlighted in the suicide-500 virgins example.

So do you have any objections to that point or is your problem now with Christ and his resurrection? If it’s about the resurrection, open a thread in the Scripture section of this forum and we can have a good time. Do PM me the thread as well.

Otherwise, I suggest we discuss the claim made here rather than worry about Christianity.

 

[Servant19]

As I indicated to you before, I and many others on this forum would be very happy to take you on in that regard. But that is irrelevant to the matter here.

All that is advanced here is that “no credibility = unreasonable to believe”.

I am not sure which Scripture scholars you are speaking of. But you have to remember that there are two different types here. When we speak of facts, we should be looking Historians. NOT Scripture scholars.

To that regard, there are enough writers, especially today with the discovery of old manuscripts who confirm that Jesus has more historical evidence than a person like Ceasar.

But that again is not the point of this thread. I would kindly ask you to open a thread in the Scripture section and I am sure you and I would be able to learn much more about that specific topic.

You do realize that Apostles and the Church fathers are not just books, right?

Have you studied the historical evidence for Apolonius of Tiana ? How many records of his existence and his deeds do you know that fall within living memory of his existence?

See, if I may suggest, we should stick to the part of this discussion that most people can understand rather than the part of verifying the actual evidence.

The claim put forth here does not require you to understand historical analysis and how one determines historical fact from fiction.

All that is said here is that a person claiming to know something from the beyond cannot be just a mere human and have obtained the knowledge by himself.

That is a rather simple statement that you don’t need to be a historian to figure out. Just because someone presented a circular system doesn’t make it reasonable for you to believe in as I highlighted in the suicide-500 virgins example.

So do you have any objections to that point or is your problem now with Christ and his resurrection? If it’s about the resurrection, open a thread in the Scripture section of this forum and we can have a good time. Do PM me the thread as well.

Otherwise, I suggest we discuss the claim made here rather than worry about Christianity.

My friend, you set the criteria for the validity of Buddha using terms that (to your belief anyway) only fit Jesus. How is that an objective basis to assess the validity of anyone?

You’re not a music historian because you don’t know anything about the Iranian singer Googoosh!! That’s a fair statement??

No one brought the resurrection of Jesus into this thread, you did
There is ample evidence for Jesus’ existence, yes, but show the one bit of non-Christian evidence for His resurrection. Or even one bit of non-Christian evidence for all the saints that were raised from the dead at the same time. Surely ONE Jew, historian, governor, anyone would have made mention of all these “raised bodies” walking the streets.

Again, basing your claims of invalidity of the Buddha on what Jesus did and Buddha didn’t, especially since you can’t fully verify what Jesus did, is a very uncharitable and unjust method of analysis. I’m sure this opinion is one shared by all objective, scholarly observers.

 

[Jaberwocky]

My friend, you set the criteria for the validity of Buddha using terms that (to your belief anyway) only fit Jesus. How is that an objective basis to assess the validity of anyone?

You’re not a music historian because you don’t know anything about the Iranian singer Googoosh!! That’s a fair statement??

No one brought the resurrection of Jesus into this thread, you did
There is ample evidence for Jesus’ existence, yes, but show the one bit of non-Christian evidence for His resurrection. Or even one bit of non-Christian evidence for all the saints that were raised from the dead at the same time. Surely ONE Jew, historian, governor, anyone would have made mention of all these “raised bodies” walking the streets.

Again, basing your claims of invalidity of the Buddha on what Jesus did and Buddha didn’t, especially since you can’t fully verify what Jesus did, is a very uncharitable and unjust method of analysis. I’m sure this opinion is one shared by all objective, scholarly observers.

Ok, so I think the only real objection here is that I invented this criterion that I am putting forth just to benefit myself.

So why don’t you explain to me how you answer the following.

A man named Jaberwocky tells you that he has found the ultimate way. It is much simpler than Buddha or Christ. You commit suicide immediately and that act takes you to the end of all suffering and the highest level of consciousness.

How would you evaluate/decide on the Jaberwocky Religion?

To any rational person, the obvious evaluation has nothing to do with the inability to disprove what I just said. It has to do with what reason to think I am from beyond.

As to why a mere man cannot say he knows information from beyond by himself, let me give you another example.

Lets say you witnessed a hallucination or a sensation that suggested “you have reached higher consciousness” and you feel a constant sense of euphoria. This feeling, as many Psycho therapists will inform you can also occur naturally, or due to medical conditions as well as induced by other drugs. The problem then is that you wouldn’t be able to necessarily distinguish if what you sense of the beyond is actually anything true. To think you can trust your senses (usually known to work for natural things) can grasp the supernatural is itself a religious belief.

So it would mean that if you to think critically, you will be impossible for you to know even if you ever attained higher consciousness. You will only know you achieved something but whether or not it corresponds to an actual reality of the beyond is unknown.

This is the problem that every person who starts off as a human being faces.

If you still cannot understand how what I say has nothing to do with Jesus, please do let me know and I can try and formulate what I say differently. I feel we are very close!

 

[rossum]

So I have heard. But most of these sources are from well beyond the living memory of these individuals.

You are incorrect. The original verbal sources go back to the Buddha’s contemporaries. The Indian tradition was that sacred texts were too precious to be written down and were transmitted verbally, see the Rig Veda for example. The verbal transmission accounts for the very repetitive style of the early texts.

Rather, they still very certainly claimed they were human. Do you see the problem?

The problem is that you have a limited view of what humans can do without external assistance.

I know you perhaps want to try and make this in to “look, you are doing the same thing game” which is nice but to do so you have to first understand that we don’t start with Abraham but from Christ.

Jesus was a man, just as Gotama and Abraham were men.

Sure. Christians find that out through their personal relationship with Christ. He helps one out, performs miracles and other things.

So, you are using the same criteria as Buddhists: “try it and see”.

You only need to be reasonable in choosing who to take medication from. That is find a DOCTOR instead of a Carpenter.

I am. The Buddha’s Four Noble Truths are given in the form of a doctor’s diagnosis and prescription. And as to the carpenter…

rossum

 

[Servant19]

Ok, so I think the only real objection here is that I invented this criterion that I am putting forth just to benefit myself.

So why don’t you explain to me how you answer the following.

A man named Jaberwocky tells you that he has found the ultimate way. It is much simpler than Buddha or Christ. You commit suicide immediately and that act takes you to the end of all suffering and the highest level of consciousness.

How would you evaluate/decide on the Jaberwocky Religion?

To any rational person, the obvious evaluation has nothing to do with the inability to disprove what I just said. It has to do with what reason to think I am from beyond.

As to why a mere man cannot say he knows information from beyond by himself, let me give you another example.

Lets say you witnessed a hallucination or a sensation that suggested “you have reached higher consciousness” and you feel a constant sense of euphoria. This feeling, as many Psycho therapists will inform you can also occur naturally, or due to medical conditions as well as induced by other drugs. The problem then is that you wouldn’t be able to necessarily distinguish if what you sense of the beyond is actually anything true. To think you can trust your senses (usually known to work for natural things) can grasp the supernatural is itself a religious belief.

So it would mean that if you to think critically, you will be impossible for you to know even if you ever attained higher consciousness. You will only know you achieved something but whether or not it corresponds to an actual reality of the beyond is unknown.

This is the problem that every person who starts off as a human being faces.

If you still cannot understand how what I say has nothing to do with Jesus, please do let me know and I can try and formulate what I say differently. I feel we are very close!

First of all Jaberwocky (I love the name btw) I want you to know that I am trying to be as sincere as possible in this discussion, my intentions are not to dispute idly or to advance myself over you, my brother and fellow lover of the Father.

I personally see it another way. First of all, no legitimate religion will last more than 5 minutes if it was to ask you to do things that are obviously harmful and relied on a “trust” in the rewards of the afterlife. You may point out extremists in any religion, but we all know that they are not following the teachings.

Buddhism most certainly is not asking it’s adherents to do things that are to the extremity of the Jaberwocky religion you pictured for us.

I see all religions as having a Teacher (Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad , Baha’u’llah etc) who are entrusted by a Higher Being to “educate” a specific population of peoples to a higher and more advanced state of material and spiritual condition.

If they do that consistently over a large expanse of time, and they profess a theological basis which deals with the higher nature of man, then I consider that to be one if the primary miracles of the said Teacher. The fact that Buddhism has produced, as one of it’s fruits, centuries and even millennia of adherents who have been examples of holiness and piety is a sure sign, for me, that the Buddha was in contact with a Higher Being, simply because His teachings produced “higher beings” (with no capital letters, since we are all still humans)

Can you name any non-spiritual tradition that has lasted nigh on 3000 years with teachings that create peacefulness, reverence, piety and humility? I could name more attributes of Buddhists, but you get the point I’m sure…

The reality is this. That miracles that can spellbind men are not worthy of men’s thoughts, nor worthy of discussion. They are relevant ONLY to the recipient, and it’s for this reason that Jesus pleaded that His miracles remain private.

The true miracle is the transforming of souls from gnats into eagles, from spiritually dead to being the spiritual wellspring of life for others.

There are only a few in history who have attained this miracle. Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha’u’llah are amongst those chosen few.

 

[Jaberwocky]

You are incorrect. The original verbal sources go back to the Buddha’s contemporaries. The Indian tradition was that sacred texts were too precious to be written down and were transmitted verbally, see the Rig Veda for example. The verbal transmission accounts for the very repetitive style of the early texts.

So you are actually undermining your own argument then that there are reliable traditions about what Buddha did that can date back to the period within living memory?

The problem is that you have a limited view of what humans can do without external assistance.

I am all for expanding my mind. The problem you seem to not address is that to even think that the human mind can grasp something from beyond is itself a religious truth. Have you thought about that?

Jesus was a man, just as Gotama and Abraham were men.

Not if he died and rose from the dead. Then it would be reasonable to acknowledge his claim to be God (or more than human) as true.

But even if all three of those were men, the correct conclusion is not that Rossum is justified in following Buddhism. The correct conclusion is that it is unreasonable to follow all three of them.

The difference here is that Christianity can be debated on the point whether Jesus was actually a man. Buddhism on the other hand requires no need for a debate because by his own admittance, Buddha is just a man.

So, you are using the same criteria as Buddhists: “try it and see”.

“Try it and see” is not a reasonable criteria. If I told you that if you were to commit suicide within minutes after reading this e-mail, you will attain a Godly nature and ascend to the higher plane of existence, would you think it reasonable to “Try and see”?

I would imagine just like any other reasonable person, you will want to know what reason you have to trust me on something like that. aka. verify I am from beyond.

I am. The Buddha’s Four Noble Truths are given in the form of a doctor’s diagnosis and prescription. And as to the carpenter…

The Carpenter can write in the format of a diagnosis. It doesn’t mean he is a Doctor.

 

[Jaberwocky]

First of all Jaberwocky (I love the name btw) I want you to know that I am trying to be as sincere as possible in this discussion, my intentions are not to dispute idly or to advance myself over you, my brother and fellow lover of the Father.

Thank you! I think that is a good way to approach things.

I personally see it another way. First of all, no legitimate religion will last more than 5 minutes if it was to ask you to do things that are obviously harmful and relied on a “trust” in the rewards of the afterlife. You may point out extremists in any religion, but we all know that they are not following the teachings.

I am not quiet sure you have studied many religions then.

It is indeed the core teaching of the Baal faith for an example that they do offer child sacrifices to their God. It is indeed the advise of Mohammed and is consistent with how he approached the matter that Muslims do forcefully convert the world to Islam.

You are also forgetting that “harm” is also a religious concept. If you were going to earn 500 virgins and heavenly bliss by committing suicide right now (as the Jaberwocky religions attests), then you cannot even quantify it as harm. It would be a good thing.

Buddhism most certainly is not asking it’s adherents to do things that are to the extremity of the Jaberwocky religion you pictured for us.

“Extremity” is a relative term. I would consider “Buddha” abandoning his family to reach higher level of consciousness to be extreme behavior. I would also consider the entire idea of achieving higher consciousness by meditation and self reliance on man that Buddhism promotes in that regards is illogical and equally extreme.

What happens to the Buddhist who abandons his own family to achieve such things today and ends up being damned for such an evil deed (if Christianity were true and Buddhism was actually false)?

I see all religions as having a Teacher (Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad , Baha’u’llah etc) who are entrusted by a Higher Being to “educate” a specific population of peoples to a higher and more advanced state of material and spiritual condition.

Can you name any non-spiritual tradition that has lasted nigh on 3000 years with teachings that create peacefulness, reverence, piety and humility? I could name more attributes of Buddhists, but you get the point I’m sure…

You seem to have a pretty low standard here. Hinduism predates Buddhism by centuries. You can find the idols resembling some of the Hindu Gods in Harappa and other places (nothing to be proud about if you have studied these civilizations).

What you do not seem to understand is that there are many liars in the world. If Christianity were true, it explains how all these men have been deceived to not evaluate their own ideas and their own authority using reason.

This is not just them but it includes you and I as well. Have you noticed how you made some religious sounding assertions unknowingly in the above block of text? You proclaimed a religious truth that God is actually working through all these men. But the honest truth that you should realize is that you are just a human being who just took a wild guess at what it might be like. Should anyone believe you? No. Should you believe yourself? No.

The right thing to do is find the reliable source. For centuries and millenniums, man has been engaged in fooling himself for all kinds of men and women who claim they know what is beyond. You don’t have to continue in it. Just start looking at the evidence critically.

The reality is this. That miracles that can spellbind men are not worthy of men’s thoughts, nor worthy of discussion. They are relevant ONLY to the recipient, and it’s for this reason that Jesus pleaded that His miracles remain private.

This is again shocking as you seem to be trying to teach Christianity as well. Christ did not want his miracles to be private eternally. In fact, he wanted his resurrection to be known throughout the world. That is the “sign of Jonah” as he describes. The only sign we will get to recognize him for who he is. The resurrection is obviously not a private miracle but a public one that can be witnessed by those around and the knowledge passed down that it did happen.

If you miss the boat, you live in your own theories of reality and those of equally incapable men like Buddha.

The true miracle is the transforming of souls from gnats into eagles, from spiritually dead to being the spiritual wellspring of life for others.

There are only a few in history who have attained this miracle. Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha’u’llah are amongst those chosen few.

Maybe you have not really read the Bible but Jesus doesn’t unfortunately leave room for Buddha, Muhammad or Baha’u’llah.

Jesus is very clear that he is the way, the truth and the life. There is no other way but through him, as he puts it. Moses is only legitimate in so far as he communicated what God had told him to communicate. Moses always said this is what God says. Not “this is what I think reality is like”.

Muhammad is a very special case. Apart from his lack of miracles to even demonstrate that he is a servant of God, his tactics and teachings were carried out by himself by converting at the sword (I am not joking here. If you have doubts, you can ask others on different forums that deal with history of Islam)

 

[rossum]

So you are actually undermining your own argument then that there are reliable traditions about what Buddha did that can date back to the period within living memory?

The First Buddhist Council was held shortly after the Buddha died, and the scriptures were recited by the monks who had known the Buddha during his lifetime and had heard him speak.

I am all for expanding my mind. The problem you seem to not address is that to even think that the human mind can grasp something from beyond is itself a religious truth. Have you thought about that?

I already know that I can grasp things beyond myself. I am not a Gamma Function, yet I can grasp a Gamma Function.

Not if he died and rose from the dead. Then it would be reasonable to acknowledge his claim to be God (or more than human) as true.

Was Lazarus more than human? He died and rose from the dead. Or maybe he was just in a coma? In you quest for prior certainty you have omitted to ask for death certificates.

The difference here is that Christianity can be debated on the point whether Jesus was actually a man.

He was a man, and He said so. The real question is whether or not He was also simultaneously a God.

rossum

 

[Jaberwocky]

The First Buddhist Council was held shortly after the Buddha died, and the scriptures were recited by the monks who had known the Buddha during his lifetime and had heard him speak.

Rossum, you answer with Oranges when the discussion is on Apples.

The discussion here was not about his Scriptures. We are talking about the man himself. His existence and his life. We need a reason to think he is special. But by his own admittance, he is a human being. That ends all debate. Do you understand that?

Or is your difficulty with the concept that a mere human cannot grasp what is beyond? If that is the case, lets talk about that rather than go all over place?

I already know that I can grasp things beyond myself. I am not a Gamma Function, yet I can grasp a Gamma Function.

??? Gamma function is a mathematical function invented by … can you take a guess?.. HUMANS!

So your ability to grasp it is nothing special Rossum. In fact, you can verify your understanding of it by talking to the “successors” (aka. Mathematicians) of the person who first constructed the function and see it work by applying it in its various empirical and abstract mathematical applications.

Was Lazarus more than human? He died and rose from the dead. Or maybe he was just in a coma? In you quest for prior certainty you have omitted to ask for death certificates.

Rossum, my friend, I have to invite you to think critically of all these examples. Lazarus did not rise by himself from the dead. Christ went in brought him out. If you truly believe in the miracle of Lazarus, the right man to credit is Christ. Not Lazarus. That is some serious misunderstanding if you think Lazarus deserves the credit now. He himself will say Jesus is the one.

He was a man, and He said so. The real question is whether or not He was also simultaneously a God.

Terminology is very important Rossum. Christ did say he was fully man and fully God.

But as I said before, I fail to you see why you want to discuss Christianity when it’s success or failure to convince you is not a reason for you accept the bankrupt Buddhism.

 

[rossum]

We are talking about the man himself. His existence and his life. We need a reason to think he is special. But by his own admittance, he is a human being. That ends all debate. Do you understand that?

The point of Buddhism is that the Buddha was a man. What he did, we can do as well. He did not have special assistance. He was not a god. He was not a mixture of man and god. He was a man who did something difficult, but something which it is within the ability of any man to achieve.

Because the Buddha was just a man, then we too have the chance to do what he did. If he had been a god/man then us ordinary men would have no chance of following his example. Because he was just a man then we can, in principle, do exactly what he did.

It is the fact that he was a man that allows us hope.

Gamma function is a mathematical function invented by … can you take a guess?.. HUMANS!

How many gods are real and how many gods are invented by … can you take a guess?.. HUMANS!

Lazarus did not rise by himself from the dead. Christ went in brought him out. If you truly believe in the miracle of Lazarus, the right man to credit is Christ. Not Lazarus. That is some serious misunderstanding if you think Lazarus deserves the credit now. He himself will say Jesus is the one.

And your proof that the Father did not raise Jesus from the dead is?

Terminology is very important Rossum. Christ did say he was fully man and fully God.

I do not recall that particular phrase from Jesus in the Bible. IIRC he implicitly denied it, “only the Father knows”, which would invalidate Jesus as an omniscient God – there is at least one thing He does not know. I am aware that Christians interpret the Bible to say so, but I do not remember seeing that actual phrasing. The Buddha was fully man. I am fully man. What the Buddha did, I can do. If Jesus was God as well as man, then I cannot do what Jesus did because I am not any sort of god (not in this lifetime anyway).

But as I said before, I fail to you see why you want to discuss Christianity when it’s success or failure to convince you is not a reason for you accept the bankrupt Buddhism.

Bankrupt? Read through Buddhist scriptures and count how many people the Buddha kills. Then read through the Bible and count how many people YHWH kills. Why would I want to follow a God with that much blood (both human and animal) on His hands?

rossum

 

[Contarini]

Okay you are totally misrepresenting Parinirvana (which is not biblical/real, btw).
In that state of enlightment and no more cycles of life, death, & rebirth, the one
that reaches this state experiences Pure Bliss and Pure Consciousness.

You don’t have you’re consciousness, that’s true, but you were an illusion, you
are not yourself BY YOURSELF, but there is only One Mind, One Spirit, ONE
SUPREME ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS (guess I can use Brahman here).

It seems to me that you’re equating Buddhism to Hinduism. Some forms of Buddhism (like the Tibetan form that bilcu appears to practice) are pretty close to Hinduism, admittedly.

 

[arthra]

Being a Baha’i I have an interest in the Buddha… and having read some of the posts here I thought I’d recommend a book by Paul Carus…

e-booksdirectory.com/details.php?ebook=6843

It’s been a popular book about the Buddha and His life… It’s a good general introduction.

Carus also has selected some teachings that may well resonate for Christians.

Also “The Light of Asia” by Edwin Arnold is available:

classicly.com/download-the-light-of-asia-pdf

There’s also the Legend of Saint Barlaam that runs through Christian and Islamic traditions:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Barlaam

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stop the polemics and stay on the topic as per forum rules.

 

[Jaberwocky]

The point of Buddhism is that the Buddha was a man. What he did, we can do as well. He did not have special assistance. He was not a god. He was not a mixture of man and god. He was a man who did something difficult, but something which it is within the ability of any man to achieve.

So can you tell us all here how you figured out that “it is something any man can achieve?”

Is it not true Rossum that it is an apriori religious belief in itself to say that one can achieve a higher state of consciousness by himself?

Because the Buddha was just a man, then we too have the chance to do what he did. If he had been a god/man then us ordinary men would have no chance of following his example. Because he was just a man then we can, in principle, do exactly what he did.

It is the fact that he was a man that allows us hope.

But this assumes that Buddha achieved something in actuality. That is the question we deal with here.

As I have said, there is no good reason to first think that we can achieved knowledge of the beyond by ourselves for the simple reason that we will not be able to say it is actual knowledge. All human beings function in the natural sphere and it is therefore impossible to know if that knowledge represents reality.

To try an explain this to you again, Buddha is like a man who says “if you stare at a small dot of light in a very dark room, you will see it move. The ultimate reality is that the dots are moving”.

Now while everyone can agree that the dot seems to move, no one knows it if actually does move (Hint, it actually doesn’t move).

How many gods are real and how many gods are invented by … can you take a guess?.. HUMANS!

Now that does not even match what I said before Rossum. But it is specifically because of the human tendency to invent stories out of imagination that should keep you from ever going in to Buddhism.

And your proof that the Father did not raise Jesus from the dead is?

Because you cannot even know if there is such a thing as a father-son thing going on apriori.

I love your questions Rossum but it seems to me like you actually concede that Buddha is a lost cause in terms of showing him credible and now you hope to justify your assent by trying to reduce Christianity to the same level. Is that it?

Because if that is the case, then you are mistaken. The metric I said was not a construction of Christianity. It is what a rational and intelligent person will use. If Christianity does fall under that metric, we accept it and move on to seek the truth elsewhere. Same happens for Buddhism.

I do not recall that particular phrase from Jesus in the Bible. IIRC he implicitly denied it, “only the Father knows”, which would invalidate Jesus as an omniscient God – there is at least one thing He does not know. I am aware that Christians interpret the Bible to say so, but I do not remember seeing that actual phrasing. The Buddha was fully man. I am fully man. What the Buddha did, I can do. If Jesus was God as well as man, then I cannot do what Jesus did because I am not any sort of god (not in this lifetime anyway).

Aah Rossum, the irony here is to see you try to teach Christianity to somehow get some leverage for Buddhism.

Let me put it this way Rossum, you don’t assent to people because you like their teaching. You first have to verify their credibility. So before you even think of being Christian and trying to quote Christ, you best make sure he is legitimate

FYI: The question you asked has been answered many times in history and if you were to visit the Scripture section, many will direct you to the sources and present them to you.

Bankrupt? Read through Buddhist scriptures and count how many people the Buddha kills. Then read through the Bible and count how many people YHWH kills. Why would I want to follow a God with that much blood (both human and animal) on His hands

Why does Buddha’s lack of killing make him a good person? That means you had an apriori religious precept that “no one can kill under any circumstances” even before you judged Buddha.

Again FYI: God can kill everyone if he wanted to because we are his creation. Morality is the will of God. It is not something apart from him that even he has to follow.

But please don’t get stuck up on Christian questions. Deal with Buddhism and the objections raised against it. If you want to speak Christianity, we can do so in a new thread under the Scripture or Philosophy sections. Ok?