Mar 1, 2012 -- 1:51PM, dio wrote:

All I'm saying is beyond Christianity and beyond Buddhism there is a truth they are both pointing to. You seem to not agree with this, saying rather speak to me of Buddhism.

Why not try to explain what the doctrine of nothingness means to you? Get philosophical.  

I don't have a doctrine of nothingness, nor have you yet qualified to discuss Buddhism.  And since they point to different, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT truths, your statement is quite ignorant.  Only someone who has no comprehension whatsoever of Buddhism, Christianity or both could try to claim they are pointing to the same thing-it's way beyond ignorant.  Really, it's just wishful thinking.  

Also, to arrive at that conclusion Dio, all you have to stand on is Logical Fallacies, namely Strawman Fallacies and the Fallacy of Equivocation.  This means such statements are empty and irrelevant to the debate.

Mar 1, 2012 -- 3:26PM, SeraphimR wrote:

Mar 1, 2012 -- 2:27PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

Mar 1, 2012 -- 1:51PM, dio wrote:

All I'm saying is beyond Christianity and beyond Buddhism there is a truth they are both pointing to. You seem to not agree with this, saying rather speak to me of Buddhism.

Why not try to explain what the doctrine of nothingness means to you? Get philosophical.  

I don't have a doctrine of nothingness, nor have you yet qualified to discuss Buddhism.  And since they point to different, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT truths, your statement is quite ignorant.  Only someone who has no comprehension whatsoever of Buddhism, Christianity or both could try to claim they are pointing to the same thing-it's way beyond ignorant.  Really, it's just wishful thinking.  

Also, to arrive at that conclusion Dio, all you have to stand on is Logical Fallacies, namely Strawman Fallacies and the Fallacy of Equivocation.  This means such statements are empty and irrelevant to the debate.

Huston Smith who knew more about religions than any other American of his generation thought all religions had the same kernel of truth.

He wrote the textbook on comparative religions.

www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/20...

That's all very interesting, and I would argue that Huston also believed one could get to the same place by taking Acid (LSD) which he did frequently...  

Regardless-for anyone to make a claim that they understand all religions, including and especially Bahai believers-is beyond ridiculous.

Understanding the various and diverse sects of Buddhism would take at least one lifetime.  Yet, it is but ONE of the "Big 8 religions".  And while I would agree that all religions DO have a similar goal (happiness), their methods and definitions of that goal are ridiculously different.  So respected or not, if Huston claimed Buddhism and Christianity are even trying to GET TO the same place-he didn't pay attention to those Zen monks very well....

Further, we have a variety of Buddhists right here on this board-many of them obviously know their doctrines-so no outside "experts" on LSD or otherwise, are necessary.  

And once again, I would remind you of principles Sera:  A wise person doesn't take a side based on the WHO, but rather upon the WHAT.  Those who take a side of an issue based on WHO have a shallow view at best, and clearly one with no principles underneath it.

Mar 1, 2012 -- 7:02PM, SeraphimR wrote:

Mar 1, 2012 -- 5:19PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

That's all very interesting, and I would argue that Huston also believed one could get to the same place by taking Acid (LSD) which he did frequently...  

Regardless-for anyone to make a claim that they understand all religions, including and especially Bahai believers-is beyond ridiculous.

Understanding the various and diverse sects of Buddhism would take at least one lifetime.  Yet, it is but ONE of the "Big 8 religions".  And while I would agree that all religions DO have a similar goal (happiness), their methods and definitions of that goal are ridiculously different.  So respected or not, if Huston claimed Buddhism and Christianity are even trying to GET TO the same place-he didn't pay attention to those Zen monks very well....

Further, we have a variety of Buddhists right here on this board-many of them obviously know their doctrines-so no outside "experts" on LSD or otherwise, are necessary.  

And once again, I would remind you of principles Sera:  A wise person doesn't take a side based on the WHO, but rather upon the WHAT.  Those who take a side of an issue based on WHO have a shallow view at best, and clearly one with no principles underneath it.

Well, you can then well understand why Dio is not persuaded by the declarations of an internet poster who styles himself "Bob the Lunatic".

You have no future as a detective:  Dio is the one trying to convince us of things based on wishful thinking rather than research or experience.  I refute the nonsense I read here, but I stopped giving explanations long ago.  Certain people could never be convinced of anything - if they lack listening skills or are simply obtuse.  

Further you made some kind of half assed point Sera, I wrecked it, now you attack my name?  

Ad hominems are common on bnet Sera, but can't say I recall one so uncreative and obvious as yours...  

Mar 2, 2012 -- 1:06AM, Aka_me wrote:

Mar 1, 2012 -- 10:55AM, chevy956 wrote:

The 4 Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path are quite clear in establishing what dukha is and how it can be remedied. The Baha'i' capacity for ignorance and dishonesty never ceases to amaze me. It is evidence that their religion is based on dishonesty. As it was founded by a career jailbird with mental illness issues, I shouldn't be surprised.

if Buddhism WAS clear about both The 4 Noble Truths AND the Eightfold Path...

then we wouldn't see Buddhist denominations neglecting the Eightfold Path as if it's irrelevant.

if Buddhism WAS clear...

there wouldn't be division over understanding and importance to various topics.

Which sects neglect it AKA?  If you are referring to mine, then you show continued ignorance.  It is not neglected, it is inherent in a deeper teaching, as previously explained.  To ignore the explanation and build a strawman would indicate the lack of a real argument.  So hopefully you mean another sect, you can name them and have a chance at a debatable point.  Would you name the sect or sects for us so we can debate the matter?