Buddhism.........

Originally posted by black beetle
Evolution and the age of the universe etc are accepted in full as they are proposed from the currently validated scientific peer reviews. The official Buddhist thesis as regards these matters amongst else, is that the various religious beliefs must be fully adjusted by whatever is accepted by the current science, and that they must be discarded if they ...[text shortened]... er.

And about G-d, they don't care at all as regards its existence or its non-existence;
😵

So you work as if there was no god, lifting yourself up by your own petards so to speak, and if there is a god, fine.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you work as if there was no god, lifting yourself up by your own petards so to speak, and if there is a god, fine.

If a creator G-d is existent or not, I care not; herenow an atheist I remain. If an existent creator G-d either likes my work or likes my work not, I care not.
Finally, either if there is or if there is not a creator G-d, it is fine to me;
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
If a creator G-d is existent or not, I care not; herenow an atheist I remain. If an existent creator G-d either likes my work or likes my work not, I care not.
Finally, either if there is or if there is not a creator G-d, it is fine to me;
😵

Thumb up, black beetle. This is the point. It really is of no consequence whether there is or is not a God. If there is, fine, if not, fine. Buddha avoided the tragi-comic debate about God's existence to focus on more important things!

Originally posted by black beetle
Yes, because the topics of the discussions are addressed to people who have already study these matters in depth.

For example, when it is said that “the world is a delusion”, it is not implied that we imagine non-existent things; instead, it is argued that the so called “objective world” (phenomenal World) is a product of a specific modification of t ...[text shortened]... the Phenomenal World are two different planes of being; over there the dualism falls apart;
😵

When I read posts like this, I think of Orwell's example of a passage from Ecclesiastes translated into "Modern English".

Original:

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happens to them all.

Modern:

Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Same here. I often get the impression that they don't understand it themselves, but I can't be sure.

For my part, I find the type of incomprehension displayed by the likes of you (some of whom, I hasten to add, are good friends) quite baffling ...

Originally posted by SwissGambit
When I read posts like this, I think of Orwell's example of a passage from Ecclesiastes translated into "Modern English".

Original:

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and c ...[text shortened]... that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

That's a very poor translation: entirely failing to convey the poetry of the original (the imagery, the rhythm - as rendered from classic Hebrew into the deliberately archaic form of English adopted by the King James translators, speakers of Early Modern English themselves); presumably Orwell's entire point.

I imagine blackbeetle has chosen to waste his time making as explicit as possible what really has to be caught -- and released -- by the enquirer.

I wonder whether what might not irritate some in Zen is the assumption of an exclusive claim to truth -- that Zen purports to contain a "higher knowledge", for example.

Woe to ye an so it be.

Originally posted by vistesd
Do you “get the impression” that a Russian speaker understands what s/he’s saying, even if you don’t? Less trivially, do you tend to get the impression that people who use technical terms in any system understand them, even if you don’t? If you were to walk into, let’s say, an intermediate to advanced lecture on musicology (or poetry, or some other subject ...[text shortened]... y Zen; but my practice has become more Jodo Shin (I find that "translation" pretty effortless).

Quite honestly, on that score you've probably written enough. The sheer futility of appealing to minds.

So you've somewhat the Ikko-ikki tendency?

Originally posted by black beetle
[b]Yes, because the topics of the discussions are addressed to people who have already study these matters in depth.

For example, when it is said that “the world is a delusion”,

The world is not deluded, just the people in it. 😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Quite honestly, on that score you've probably written enough. The sheer futility of appealing to minds.

So you've somewhat the Ikko-ikki tendency?

Thank you.

Ikko-ikki? No revolutionary here. Just my common tendency to find a heretical synthesis. (By the way, I am currently reading a book called Heart of the Shin Buddhist Path by Takamoro Shigaraki (my fourth book on Pure Land Buddhism), in which the author argues that Pure Land took a dualistic turn after Shinran (with Rennyo complicit). My own impetus might go back to some conversations I had with a Pure Land Buddhist on here several years ago, in which he seemed surprised that someone with my Zennish bent was not simply dismissive of Jodo Shin. My response:

tariki,
jiriki:

ichiki—

You and blackbeetle are the scholars here (and Taoman)—I’m just a down-to-the-ground practicer, who synthesizes all over the place as I need to.

Namu amida budu is, for me, the same as namu jodo shin (“shin” here meaning mind), is the same as namu Buddha shin, is the same as namu tathata shin, is the same as “I, too, am tatahagata”—to mix languages a bit. You, too, are tathagata—how could it be otherwise?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
When I read posts like this, I think of Orwell's example of a passage from Ecclesiastes translated into "Modern English".

Original:

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and c ...[text shortened]... that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

When I read replies like this one of yours, all hope of allowing you to examine specific ideas critically is removed😵

Originally posted by Pianoman1
These are quite jargon free and easy to understand.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"

Leonardo da Vinci

Originally posted by divegeester
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"

Leonardo da Vinci

The thing about Buddhism, divegeester, is that, stripped of its outwardly baffling dogma, it is, in essence, supremely simple. You will find many high-sounding sanskrit phrases in this post from Buddhist scholars who have a deep understanding of the Pali Canon, but they are just wool over your eyes. ignore them. Focus on the simplest of doctrines - the Four Noble Truths. "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - I like it!
I bow to you.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
Thumb up, black beetle. This is the point. It really is of no consequence whether there is or is not a God. If there is, fine, if not, fine. Buddha avoided the tragi-comic debate about God's existence to focus on more important things!

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance.
The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." -C. S. Lewis

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance.
The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." -C. S. Lewis

Methinks Christianity, if false, is a non-tenable religious theory of reality of no importance within the realm of phenomena; and if true, is a tenable religious theory of reality of no importance within the realm of phenomena. The sole thing it cannot be is absolutely important, since always in the realm of phenomena it remains😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Methinks Christianity, if false, is a non-tenable religious theory of reality of no importance within the realm of phenomena; and if true, is a tenable religious theory of reality of no importance within the realm of phenomena. The sole thing it cannot be is absolutely important, since always in the realm of phenomena it remains😵

Also, given that whether or not people believe in the religion has real world
consequences, whether it is true or false, it has degrees of medium importance
from that perspective alone.

So the quote is entirely and completely wrong.

The only level of importance it can have is medium.*

*given a choice between 0, medium, and infinite.)