Trinity

[seeds]

Absolutely nothing coming out of Buddhism...

(whether it be “Buddhism-proper” or any other name you wish to give it)

...offers anything whatsoever that would resolve the deep seated need and desire within the human psyche to understand how we and the unthinkable order of the universe came into existence.

Sure, it may provide some formalized guidelines for how one should live their life on earth in order to avoid certain forms of suffering.

Nevertheless, its own doctrines suggest that Buddhism itself is nothing more than a temporary “raft” to carry humans across the waters of earthly existence.

Nope, the 'raft' in Buddhism is totally different from the Abrahamic and Hinduism where the their raft is a mean to a teleological end.

Within Buddhism proper there is not only one raft and one final destinations. In Buddhism-proper there the never journey is never ending and a raft is need for each of the never ending water crossings.
The core principle in Buddhism with the raft metaphor is not to cling to the old raft but build new ones at every water crossing.

Over the years you have made it abundantly clear that you do not believe in any sort of an afterlife for humans, and that you do not believe in a “never ending” journey for the human soul because, according to your own fundamental worldview, the journey ends for us at the moment of physical death.

Indeed, when asked about the implications that Buddha himself may have undergone a series of deaths and rebirths, you stated the following:

'Non-self' [anicca] mean no permanent soul that will survive physical death in some heaven.

Note Buddhism-proper is divorced from the idea of Rebirth, Buddhist heaven, gods, myths, spirits, etc., believed by various lower levels Buddhists.

If there are no permanent [anicca] and no self/soul [anatta], what is there to be reborn?

So yes,
"...his personal consciousness and personal sense of self-awareness have been extinguished and no longer exist."

In which case, if according to you, not even Buddha himself can be considered as still being alive and continuing on in some higher context of reality,...

...then what is this utter nonsense you are suggesting about the building and abandoning of a “never-ending” series of rafts to carry a person over a future of “never-ending” water crossings when, in fact, after a person has died, there will no longer exist any further water crossings for them to deal with?

In a prior post you said the following to Averroes:

“You are very desperate and deceptive.”

Well, setting aside your sloppy grammar in your “desperate and deceptive” reply to me, it is obvious that you are not a stranger to “projection.”
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

....

[Veritas Aequitas]

....

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Averroes, the bottom line is that neither you nor Veritas Aequitas are coming off as looking very intelligent with your school yard tit-for-tat exchange of:

You: “You’re stupid”
Him: “No, you’re stupid”
You: “No, you’re even stupider”
Him: “No, you’re even more stupider”

Are you guys 12 years old?
_______

Averroes is the one who had gone mad, crazy and stupid with condemning me as 'stupid' in every paragraph, so the easiest strategy is to throw back it back at him with this simple effective statement,

"I have already told you, you are the stupid one in the first place in condemning others as stupid and ignorant."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Absolutely nothing coming out of Buddhism...

(whether it be “Buddhism-proper” or any other name you wish to give it)

...offers anything whatsoever that would resolve the deep seated need and desire within the human psyche to understand how we and the unthinkable order of the universe came into existence.

Sure, it may provide some formalized guidelines for how one should live their life on earth in order to avoid certain forms of suffering.

Nevertheless, its own doctrines suggest that Buddhism itself is nothing more than a temporary “raft” to carry humans across the waters of earthly existence.

Nope, the 'raft' in Buddhism is totally different from the Abrahamic and Hinduism where the their raft is a mean to a teleological end.

Within Buddhism proper there is not only one raft and one final destinations. In Buddhism-proper there the never journey is never ending and a raft is need for each of the never ending water crossings.
The core principle in Buddhism with the raft metaphor is not to cling to the old raft but build new ones at every water crossing.

Over the years you have made it abundantly clear that you do not believe in any sort of an afterlife for humans, and that you do not believe in a “never ending” journey for the human soul because, according to your own fundamental worldview, the journey ends for us at the moment of physical death.

Indeed, when asked about the implications that Buddha himself may have undergone a series of deaths and rebirths, you stated the following:

'Non-self' [anicca] mean no permanent soul that will survive physical death in some heaven.

Note Buddhism-proper is divorced from the idea of Rebirth, Buddhist heaven, gods, myths, spirits, etc., believed by various lower levels Buddhists.

If there are no permanent [anicca] and no self/soul [anatta], what is there to be reborn?

So yes,
"...his personal consciousness and personal sense of self-awareness have been extinguished and no longer exist."

In which case, if according to you, not even Buddha himself can be considered as still being alive and continuing on in some higher context of reality,...

...then what is this utter nonsense you are suggesting about the building and abandoning of a “never-ending” series of rafts to carry a person over a future of “never-ending” water crossings when, in fact, after a person has died, there will no longer exist any further water crossings for them to deal with?

You need to understand the point in the context with the whole of Buddhism-proper.
The "never-ending" is conditioned upon the physical death.

Note the
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
which has an iterative features.

The "raft" metaphor is meant to highlight that one should not cling to whatever [strategies, physical and mental ] that one has utilized in producing any results, neither should one cling on the 'results'.

In a prior post you said the following to Averroes:

“You are very desperate and deceptive.”

Well, setting aside your sloppy grammar in your “desperate and deceptive” reply to me, it is obvious that you are not a stranger to “projection.”
_______

I am very aggressive with Socrates' "Know Thyself" thus will avoid any sense of 'projection'.

I used the term 'desperate' when I read one's response which is driven subliminally from direct impulses of the existential crisis. I will usually provide the context and argument why a person is desperate.

I don't sense you are as 'desperate' as people like Averroes who tried to deflect to the point of accusing others as stupid without "sound" justifications.
I will readily admit my points are stupid if they are irrational and unintelligent.
Where I used the term 'stupid' I will refer to the specific point or context and qualify 'in this case' and not that the other is totally and wholly stupid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already told you, you are the stupid one in the first place in condemning others as stupid and ignorant.

You have not answered my question. So, I ask you again: why you are so stupid and ignorant? Do you know?

Averroes, perhaps you are not aware of the fact that Veritas Aequitas has declared in writing...

(right here on this website)

...that he considers himself to be an equal in intellect to such historical figures as Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes.

And the point is, how dare you have the audacity to call a self-declared monument to genius, stupid and ignorant?

(Continued in next post)
_______

You are wrong with with the above.

I have no hesitant in declaring I am a reasonable expert with the philosophical views of Kant, of Buddhism-proper, the verses and ideology of the Quran and Ethics and Morality based on the extensive research I had done on them.
Nope I am not an expert in terms of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein..

It is too petty to focus on the above.
What is pertinent to support one's point with rational arguments and reference to their primary sources.

[Averroes]

Averroes, perhaps you are not aware of the fact that Veritas Aequitas has declared in writing...

(right here on this website)

...that he considers himself to be an equal in intellect to such historical figures as Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes.

Indeed, I was not aware but that doesn't surprise at all me that he would say something like that. I got used to him saying much more stupid things to me. Sometimes he makes me laugh I have to admit. Anyway, what is common to all these people you have mentioned is that they are all dead now. So, Veritas must have meant that his intellect is equal to that of a dead person. Now, nearly everyone on the forum already knows that Veritas has practically no intellect. That's obvious. So to me that would be a clear recognition on his part of his own stupidity. That's good if he has had such a moment of lucidity and that's also why I have been asking him for the reason for his stupidity. He has not yet answered but I am still waiting.

[seeds]

Averroes, perhaps you are not aware of the fact that Veritas Aequitas has declared in writing...

(right here on this website)

...that he considers himself to be an equal in intellect to such historical figures as Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes.

Indeed, I was not aware but that doesn't surprise at all me that he would say something like that...

Well, just to clarify, he stated (or at least implied) that the reason why everybody gives him such a hard time...

(what he called “left, right, and center bashings”)

...is for the same reason that the pioneers and front runners in knowledge such as Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes, were given a hard time when they first introduced their ideas to the world.

So make of that what you will.
_______

[seeds]

In which case, if according to you, not even Buddha himself can be considered as still being alive and continuing on in some higher context of reality,...

...then what is this utter nonsense you are suggesting about the building and abandoning of a “never-ending” series of rafts to carry a person over a future of “never-ending” water crossings when, in fact, after a person has died, there will no longer exist any further water crossings for them to deal with?

You need to understand the point in the context with the whole of Buddhism-proper.
The "never-ending" is conditioned upon the physical death.

No, you need to be more careful in how you word your replies.

There was nothing in your response that would indicate that your use of the phrases “never-ending journey” and “never-ending water crossings” were only meant to be applied to the few moments we spend on earth between birth and death.

Anyone with an ounce of integrity would admit their error, apologize, and then move on.

However, instead of that, you expect that everyone should have been able to read your mind and somehow discern what you actually meant in your poorly written argument.

The "raft" metaphor is meant to highlight that one should not cling to whatever [strategies, physical and mental ] that one has utilized in producing any results,...

You don’t need to explain to me what the “raft” metaphor means.

No, you need to explain why you cannot seem to understand how my referring to Buddhism itself as being an example of the raft metaphor, completely fits in with the interpretation you offered.

For it should be obvious that Buddhism can be seen as a “strategy” (both physical and mental) that one can use to produce the “result” of helping one live a specific way of life on earth.

And once one reaches the shore of death, then whichever raft one may have used to make the journey,...

(be it the rafts of Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or even materialism and atheism, etc.)

...it will no longer be clung to, and will thus be abandoned.

And humans will of course abandon those earthly rafts because of one of the two following reasons:

• 1. A person’s life and consciousness have blinked-out of existence forever and no longer needs the abovementioned rafts.
  
  ...or...
  
  2. A person’s life and consciousness continues on in a higher context of reality, and whatever the old rafts stood for (especially hardcore materialism), will no longer be useful with respect to the new situation.

And finally, let’s get something straight.

I couldn’t care less about what “Buddhism-proper” has to say about anything.

Buddhism has been around since the 6th century B.C.E., and if it truly possessed some kind of irrefutable truth about reality, then it has had plenty of time for that truth to become obvious to everyone.

Yet the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of humans on earth are attracted to the religions that not only provide a sense of hope that life does not end at the death of the physical body,...

...but also stand as alternatives to the utterly ridiculous notion (a notion that you yourself apparently hold to be true) that the vast and unfathomable order of the universe is a product of chance.

In which case, your so-called “Buddhism-proper” does neither of those things.

As I keep saying, we need a “new spiritual paradigm” to replace the old paradigm.

In other words, we need a new spiritual vision of reality that can hold its own against all of the skepticism that has arisen due to all of the modern day discoveries in cosmology, biology, and quantum theory.

And the point is that if all you are going to do is proselytize for what is nothing more than one of the old facets of the old paradigm, then you are basically no different than a Jehovah’s Witness who comes knocking at the door to hand someone a copy of the Watchtower magazine.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

In which case, if according to you, not even Buddha himself can be considered as still being alive and continuing on in some higher context of reality,...

...then what is this utter nonsense you are suggesting about the building and abandoning of a “never-ending” series of rafts to carry a person over a future of “never-ending” water crossings when, in fact, after a person has died, there will no longer exist any further water crossings for them to deal with?

You need to understand the point in the context with the whole of Buddhism-proper.
The "never-ending" is conditioned upon the physical death.

No, you need to be more careful in how you word your replies.

There was nothing in your response that would indicate that your use of the phrases “never-ending journey” and “never-ending water crossings” were only meant to be applied to the few moments we spend on earth between birth and death.

Anyone with an ounce of integrity would admit their error, apologize, and then move on.

However, instead of that, you expect that everyone should have been able to read your mind and somehow discern what you actually meant in your poorly written argument.

The "raft" metaphor is meant to highlight that one should not cling to whatever [strategies, physical and mental ] that one has utilized in producing any results,...

You don’t need to explain to me what the “raft” metaphor means.

No, you need to explain why you cannot seem to understand how my referring to Buddhism itself as being an example of the raft metaphor, completely fits in with the interpretation you offered.

For it should be obvious that Buddhism can be seen as a “strategy” (both physical and mental) that one can use to produce the “result” of helping one live a specific way of life on earth.

And once one reaches the shore of death, then whichever raft one may have used to make the journey,...

(be it the rafts of Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or even materialism and atheism, etc.)

...it will no longer be clung to, and will thus be abandoned.

And humans will of course abandon those earthly rafts because of one of the two following reasons:

• 1. A person’s life and consciousness have blinked-out of existence forever and no longer needs the abovementioned rafts.
  
  ...or...
  
  2. A person’s life and consciousness continues on in a higher context of reality, and whatever the old rafts stood for (especially hardcore materialism), will no longer be useful with respect to the new situation.

And finally, let’s get something straight.

I couldn’t care less about what “Buddhism-proper” has to say about anything.

Buddhism has been around since the 6th century B.C.E., and if it truly possessed some kind of irrefutable truth about reality, then it has had plenty of time for that truth to become obvious to everyone.

Yet the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of humans on earth are attracted to the religions that not only provide a sense of hope that life does not end at the death of the physical body,...

...but also stand as alternatives to the utterly ridiculous notion (a notion that you yourself apparently hold to be true) that the vast and unfathomable order of the universe is a product of chance.

In which case, your so-called “Buddhism-proper” does neither of those things.

As I keep saying, we need a “new spiritual paradigm” to replace the old paradigm.

In other words, we need a new spiritual vision of reality that can hold its own against all of the skepticism that has arisen due to all of the modern day discoveries in cosmology, biology, and quantum theory.

And the point is that if all you are going to do is proselytize for what is nothing more than one of the old facets of the old paradigm, then you are basically no different than a Jehovah’s Witness who comes knocking at the door to hand someone a copy of the Watchtower magazine.
_______

I see you as very pathetic is trying to justify your argument with arrogance despite being so ignorant of Buddhism proper.

Before you respond you should at least done a quick survey with google to get a general idea instead of jumping to conclusion based on your ignorance then make a fool of yourself with your arrogance and insistence you are write.

Here is what I obtain from a quick survey from google;

https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/buddhis ... -the-raft/
By Stephen Batchelor [a very reputable Buddhism scholar]

THE PARABLE OF THE RAFT
Imagine, friends, a man in the course of a journey who arrives at a great expanse of water, whose near bank is dangerous and whose far bank offers safety. But there is no ferryboat or bridge to take him across the water. So he thinks: ‘What if I collected grass, twigs, branches and leaves and bound them together as a raft? Supported by the raft and by paddling with my hands and feet, I should then be able to reach the far bank.’

“He does this and succeeds in getting across.

“On arriving at the far bank, it might occur to him: ‘This raft has been very helpful indeed. What if I were to hoist it on my head or shoulders, then proceed on my journey?’ Now, what do you think? By carrying it with him, would that man be doing what should be done with a raft?’

“’No, sir,’ replied his audience.

“’So what should he do with the raft? Having arrived at the far bank, he might think: ‘Yes, this raft has been very useful, but now I should just haul it onto dry land or leave it floating in the water, and then continue on my journey.’ In this way the man would be doing what should be done with that raft.

• “The dharma too is like a raft. It serves the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of grasping.
  
  “When you understand that the dharma is like a raft, and that you should let go even of positive things (dhamma), then how much more so should you let go of negative things (adhamma).” [MN 22]

What the parable also is telling us is that the dharma is understood as a means not as an end. The practice of the dharma is very effective in resolving certain issues that might be obstructing us. But once it’s done its work, we can let go of it.
If we become attached to the dharma, Buddhism, or any other form of religious practice—if we hold on to it as intrinsically valuable—it can turn into an obstacle, a burden that you keep carrying on your back even though you no longer have any need for it.

The Raft Metaphor is used to expound the core teachings of the twelve nidanas which include, contact, experience, feelings, desire, craving, clinging, attachments which leads to the continual cycles of sufferings.

As I had stated I am a reasonable expert with Buddhism-proper and in-general, so it would be advisable not to challenge me on Buddhism until you have done the sufficient extensive research into the subject.

Btw, Buddhism-proper is a very extensive and complex subject so it is not easy to detail everything in a forum like this and it is more limited in individual postings.

[Belinda]

Thank you Veritas Aequitas for narrating the raft allegory which I had not known about and found to be true.

Here is an interview with Stephen Batchelor and Don Cupitt that might be of interest:

https://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index. ... tic-cleric


From Stephen Batchelor's Facebook page:

I’m pleased to let you know that Bodhi Institute, a project I’ve been developing with my friends Christina Feldman, John Peacock and Akincano Weber over the past couple of years is now up and running. Starting in 2016, we will be offering a range of longer and shorter courses focused on “Early Buddhist Teaching for a Secular Age.” I will be primarily involved in teaching a two-year modular programme entitled “Secular Dharma: Theory and Practice.” While operating primarily in Britain, we will also be offering courses in Germany, Italy and Switzerland. For further information and booking details, go to: www.bodhi-institute.org And please share this link with anyone who might be interested.

[Averroes]

Belinda your post has reminded me of a Muslim scholar by the name of Sheik Hussein Yee. Here is what is said on Sheikh Yee on the Muslimcentral website:

• Shaykh Hussain Yee is a well known International Daee and is the President of Pertubuhan Al-Khaadem in Malaysia. Among other positions, he spent a year in 1980 as an Advisor for the Cambodian Islamic Refugee Organisation in Paris, France. He has also served as a Counsellor at PERKIM Kuala Lumpur and as the Director of Da’wah for the Islamic Center in Hong Kong from 1984 to 1985.
  
  Shaykh Hussain is a Malaysian national of Chinese descent, born into a Buddhist family, he embraced Islam at the age of 18 in 1968.
  
  He pursued further studies at the Islamic University of Madinah in Saudi Arabia majoring in Hadith. He also studied under one of the great scholars on Hadith of his time, Shaikh Muhammad Nasiruddin Al-Albani.
  
  Shaykh Hussain is a well-known personality in the Islamic world. He gives regular lectures in the Asia Pacific region and is a regular on Peace TV. https://muslimcentral.com/audio/hussain-yee/

So thank you Belinda for unintentionally reminding me of Sheikh Yee. I now have remembered having once listened to him on the Buddha, and how he explained it to us so very well. If the real Buddha was as Sheikh Yee has described, then I have respect for him. Sheikh Yee has said that the real Buddha believed in God, the Almighty and the Buddha's aim in life was to get closer to God the Almighty. Sheikh Yee being an Islamic scholar of reputation, so I believe him and therefore I remove all the bad statements I said before about the real Buddha. If the Buddha was indeed a servant of God, the Almighty as Sheikh Yee has explained then I ask Allah the Almighty to forgive me for having disrespected His servant. Here is the YT video where Sheikh Yee explained to us who was the Buddha and what was his mission in life: https://youtu.be/IvCU-4TE-ec?t=152

[attofishpi]

If the Buddha was indeed a servant of God, the Almighty as Sheikh Yee has explained then I ask Allah the Almighty to forgive me for having disrespected His servant.

What if Buddha was just a very nice and highly intelligent bloke - is it ok to disrespect him then?

.

[Belinda]

Trains of thought are unaccountable, Averroes.

Stephen Batchelor and Don Cupitt both support free thought whereas Islam has closed the gates of Ijtihad.

[Averroes]

If the Buddha was indeed a servant of God, the Almighty as Sheikh Yee has explained then I ask Allah the Almighty to forgive me for having disrespected His servant.

What if Buddha was just a very nice and highly intelligent bloke - is it ok to disrespect him then?

You make your own choices. Or are you asking me what to do as a student asks his teacher?

You have shown a picture of a demolished Buddha statue in Afghanistan The Afghan can do whatever they want with their property, it's their right. Are you not for freedom of conscience and freedom of expression? The Chinese too are destroying statues of Buddha on a massive scale in China: https://bitterwinter.org/buddhist-statu ... oss-china/
I too have smashed all the statues and tore up all the pictures that I had before embracing Islam. Those were my properties and I disposed of them as I wished. The interesting thing is that none of those statues could protect or defend themselves when I smashed them into pieces, nor did they protest.