dylanj wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:00 am
yeah & this is a theravāda buddhist forum which has a "discovering theravāda" subforum where members such as you & those you describe are welcome to express your skepticism. but it's inappropriate elsewhere, not so much in the sense that you should not participate but that it derails the discussion when someone contributes nothing other than their skepticism & disbelief in the Dhamma. I don't think the faithful Buddhists should have to explain & justify their views again & again to nonbuddhist skeptic-materialists on a Buddhist forum - that would take up a lot of time & inhibit the pursuit of those who are here to understand the Dhamma as the Buddha taught it, which is what this forum is for.
I hope you can understand this. I am happy to explain & justify my faith without a "circular" (it's not as if I would ever use the sort of argument in the dialogue you provided, nor am I doing so in this thread) argument to authority based on scripture & feel I am wholly capable of doing so but again, I think it's off-topic here, & if a skeptic is left unsatisfied they are free to go to the Discovering Theravāda subforum or PM & ask for elaboration.
Dylan, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I wasn't trying to derail the conversation at all. This subforum is for "Connections to Other Paths" - and since my path is heavily informed by the Western Insight movement I'd say that my frame of reference is appropriately expressed here. In fact, this is one of only a small number of subs in this forum in which I think ANY practitioner of ANY path should feel completely at ease and not disruptive when providing their POV. Perhaps you'd benefit by not expecting to only see Theravadan POV's in a sub which has "Other Paths" in the title.
I only occasionally post in DWT, purely because I don't wish to interrupt the flow in the way that you describe. Not only that, but my practice is new and I'm here to learn, more than anything else. When I do post, it's with a fully open mind and a friendly attitude. I'll occasionally attempt to be funny, but I do so with zero malicious intent- only a desire to be lighthearted. If you or anyone else thinks my presence in a thread is inappropriate, I'm happy to consider the criticism without taking it personally in any way.
So- If one were to take the Pali Canon as the literal word of a person with omniscience, one would certainly say that if the Buddha didn't introduce an idea by saying it was allegorical, then it categorically is NOT allegorical. After all, he said that he spoke nothing but the truth so help him himself (not a real quote, not slanderous, just a little lighthearted, settle down). I get it. But the view from my newly-discovered, gnarled, rocky, overgrown, uphill Other Path
where I seem to be walking with a bunch of hippies (it does smell kind of funny over here), the sutta discussed in the OP does seem like a myth. And guess what? I think that's super cool. I don't know if you happened to read one of my other posts, but here's something that might help you to understand me a little better:
ScottPen wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:56 am
Some folks have a hard time reconciling the pragmatic and sensible nature of the dhamma with what they consider to be the implausible "metaphysical" parts of it. They hold the Buddha in such high regard, that they refuse to reject the dhamma on the basis of what they consider to be implausible, and as such they embrace it in a way that makes sense to them. That's not defamation. That's esteem.
Have a fantastic day, my friend!