User1249x wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 11:17 pmimo it has been assumed by implication by many, you as wellWho said that??Saying categorically "it is not possible that the Buddha was rightfully said to have attained the highest meditative attainments and that his disciples nowadays also attain the highest meditative attainments and that it is impossible to go beyond faith in the Dhamma" that does not really mean anything because it is neither backed by proof nor authority established as such.
How has it been assumed by implication?? By not looking to you as my teacher?
I'm talking about apologetics from various religions and the epistemology implied in that. They make claims such as:can you give some actual examples of particular analogues in the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to methods of validition and scope of justified belief and verification between Buddhist and Christian doctrines?binocular wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 6:57 pm I say that other religions make the same type of statement, the same type of claims, not the same statements, not the same claims.
Buddhist apologists often sound like Christian apologists. The names and key concepts are of course different, but the religious epistemology they present, or imply, is often the same.
"The teachings are for everyone in as far as a good advice is for everyone."
"He did, however, maintain that the truth was real, and that it was available to those who awaken to it."
And so on.
And Christian apologists say that one should build one's house on a rock, not on sand. And if you agree with that, they conclude that you (should) believe that the right thing to do is to build you (spiritual) house on the rock that is Jesus."If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. /.../
IOW, they put forward some noncontroversial claim, a truism, but then insist that it proves their very specific point.
Would you say that if I don't look up to you as my teacher, then I'm thereby implying that the Buddha wasn't enlightened?