IC please clarify for us

[Walker]

Stick to Christianity.

Buddhism is far more rational, and the "there" in the question was about rationality.

*

As was mentioned, Buddhism is about understanding the nature of mind*.

It is implied and taught by Buddha, because Buddha did not explicitly state the purpose of Buddhism, which is why folks mistakenly think that the purpose of Buddhism is to end suffering. All the practices are to understand the nature of mind.

When the nature of mind is understood, the end of suffering is the effect.

The life of Buddha before he became a teacher is how he came to understand the nature of mind.



* google "sems nyid," because you are a very rational and respected person.

[Immanuel Can]

Buddhism is far more rational, and the "there" in the question was about rationality.

Buddhism is definitely not more rational. It's substantially less so. It doesn't even pretend to be.

[Walker]

Buddhism is far more rational, and the "there" in the question was about rationality.

Buddhism is definitely not more rational. It's substantially less so. It doesn't even pretend to be.

Buddhism has vehicles of teaching for all capacities, as does Christianity.

In Christianity you have the spirit flowing through practices of devotion and emotion, and through practices of the intellect.
Different strokes for different capacities.

Holy Rollers and Jesuits.

You, are a Jnani.
Not everyone is cut out for that, but that's where the sincere road eventually leads sooner or later, later being death bed reflections that lead to truth, and in life emotional devotion is the energy that fuels understanding, that comes about through the tradition.

[Immanuel Can]

Buddhism is far more rational, and the "there" in the question was about rationality.

Buddhism is definitely not more rational. It's substantially less so. It doesn't even pretend to be.

Buddhism has vehicles of teaching for all capacities...

It's true there's a number of different Buddhist sects. As with any group, they cannot all be right, insofar as they contradict each other.

Theravadas, for example, sometimes insist they believe in no gods and no spirits. Tibetan Buddhism and the various folk Buddhisms, on the other hand, believe in gods and spirits of various kinds...demons, really. Only one of the two, at most, can be right. Either there's no such thing as a god, a spirit or a demon, or there is. Either way, one is off track, and both will tell you it's the other one.

The same happens in all "religions" and ideologies, considered at their broadest level; they contradict other belief systems, and they contradict each other. So the option of thinking they are all the same route to the same ends isn't really rationally possible. So to say, as a blanket statement, that "all Buddhisms are rational" is impossible.

Inasmuch as they deny essential elements of each other, rationality itself makes that irrational to suppose.

[Walker]

Like Christianity, Buddhism is larger than the particulars of a culture.
This is how Buddhism spread from India to other cultures.
This is how Christianity spread from the middle east to all over the world.

Christianity is larger than the particulars of a culture.
Christianity is larger than the limitations of a particular culture.
Christianity transcends time.

The aim of Buddhism is to be beyond limitations, which is the potential of mind.

[Immanuel Can]

Like Christianity, Buddhism is larger than the particulars of a culture.

But rationality is universal, and is governed by the Law of Non-Contradiction. You can't make statements about Buddhism as a whole without violating it, to the extent that different Buddhisms contradict each other.

[Walker]

Like Christianity, Buddhism is larger than the particulars of a culture.

But rationality is universal, and is governed by the Law of Non-Contradiction. You can't make statements about Buddhism as a whole without violating it, to the extent that different Buddhisms contradict each other.

When Buddhism moves into the culture, as it did with Padmasambhava taking Buddhism up north into Oddiyana where ancient Bon Po was practiced by locals, it takes the truth that is the essence of those traditions, so that Buddhism may be understood by those cultures and not rejected. This is how Buddhism spread north. Rationality absorbs the truth inherent in the resident religions, which is why Buddhism is larger than the limitations of a culture ... and I would imagine that the same applies to Christianity, but I haven't been taught that. And I must tell you, I am not a teacher of Buddhism and for that reason, the lama of the lineage told me not to teach (he said debate), particularly on the internet, because my limitations of not being authorized to teach, by him, could easily corrupt understanding for others, particularly those eager to twist what they hear. So, I am careful to only speak of the generalized view, and because of my non-teaching limitations, shall we say, otherwise would cause misunderstandings of what is precious. But I see that over the years the view has migrated to the internet in bits and pieces, and I am not teaching. So, thank you very much for your views, IC, for taking the time and consideration to explain, and I understand what you are saying. Always a pleasure.

[Gary Childress]

Like Christianity, Buddhism is larger than the particulars of a culture.

But rationality is universal, and is governed by the Law of Non-Contradiction. You can't make statements about Buddhism as a whole without violating it, to the extent that different Buddhisms contradict each other.

When Buddhism moves into the culture, as it did with Padmasambhava taking Buddhism up north into Oddiyana where ancient Bon Po was practiced by locals, it takes the truth that is the essence of those traditions, so that Buddhism may be understood by those cultures and not rejected. This is how Buddhism spread north. Rationality absorbs the truth inherent in the resident religions, which is why Buddhism is larger than the limitations of a culture ... and I would imagine that the same applies to Christianity, but I haven't been taught that. And I must tell you, I am not a teacher of Buddhism and for that reason, the lama of the lineage told me not to teach (he said debate), particularly on the internet, because my limitations of not being authorized to teach, by him, could easily corrupt understanding for others, particularly those eager to twist what they hear. So, I am careful to only speak of the generalized view, and because of my non-teaching limitations, shall we say, otherwise would cause misunderstandings of what is precious. But I see that over the years the view has migrated to the internet in bits and pieces, and I am not teaching. So, thank you very much for your views, IC, for taking the time and consideration to explain, and I understand what you are saying. Always a pleasure.

Do you identify as a Buddhist? Or what would you identify yourself as? Agnostic?

[Walker]

I am a practitioner ... of what is not bound by tradition, but taught within tradition.

[Gary Childress]

I am a practitioner ... of what is not bound by tradition, but taught within tradition.

So you are not "agnostic," is that correct? Or are you "agnostic" (or also agnostic)?

[Walker]

You asked me a serious question.
I respectfully answered.

Try to understand the answer rather than try to make it fit into, whatever.

That's all you get, sunshine.

[Gary Childress]

You asked me a serious question.
I respectfully answered.

Try to understand the answer rather than try to make it fit into, whatever.

That's all you get, sunshine.

Fair enough. When it comes to religion or spirituality, I identify as "agnostic". What are your thoughts on "agnosticism"?

[Gary Childress]

He must be on a higher spiritual plane than I am. I wonder what altitude he's flying at?

[Immanuel Can]

Like Christianity, Buddhism is larger than the particulars of a culture.

But rationality is universal, and is governed by the Law of Non-Contradiction. You can't make statements about Buddhism as a whole without violating it, to the extent that different Buddhisms contradict each other.

Rationality absorbs the truth inherent in the resident religions,

Buddhism rejects rationality, in favour of "enlightenment."

...the lama of the lineage told me not to teach (he said debate), particularly on the internet, because my limitations of not being authorized to teach, by him, could easily corrupt understanding for others, particularly those eager to twist what they hear.

Or maybe he worried they'd see the problems inherent in its anti-rationalism.

So, thank you very much for your views, IC, for taking the time and consideration to explain, and I understand what you are saying. Always a pleasure.

I sense closure coming...which is fine. I'm not chasing you...just curious as to what possible link rationality would have with such varied and contradictory traditions.

[Walker]

Oh sure. I just cannot transgress and betray the conditions, although it was long ago and the lama has left this realm.

Rationality should explain the answer to your enquiry.
Christianity and Buddhism have spread all over the world, into diverse cultures.
Rational folks are found in all cultures.

Your interest is a worthy pursuit of inquiry.
Christianity and Buddhism:
For each the view is conceptual, the practice is energetic.
The purpose of each is to be beyond limitations, which is why Christianity pretty much says one must die to the old, to begin anew.

For fun ...
Seeking the path …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mIjqzjZpiw