Bibilcal Swine?

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:

So what if it was pigs? Could have been anything. That's not the point of the tale...

Actually, I am not sure that was my point, dear Joe. I was perplexed as to why there were swine in Palestine.

Tarquin Maynard Portly gave a perfect answer: Thery were wild, and not food for the Jews.

They were similar to rats for us I suppose.

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
I was perplexed as to why there were swine in Palestine.

Tarquin Maynard Portly gave a perfect answer: Thery were wild, and not food for the Jews.

They were similar to rats for us I suppose.

All the best from Fredrik

There were also plenty of non-Jews living in the area at the time, collectively known as Gentiles, for example the Samaritans. They would have been quite happy keeping pigs.

Look what you started dear Fredrik; hope you're pleased with yourself

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
Jesus wasn't a Jew.

Joe,

Insofar as his mother was Jewish (which is the clincher here and regardless of what his father was, whoever he was/is) he was certainly Jewish, at least by birth and upbringing. Maybe he was an Essene or a Zealot or simply the heir to King David making an attempt to kick the Romans out - there is evidence for all of this (which of course does not make any of it true necessarily - (as a barrister friend of mine said 'there is no such thing as the truth only evidence')but on one thing I am sure, he was not the son of God and there is no evidence that he was. None. Insofar as he did not start Christianity being (allegedly) dead by that time he can certainly not be called a Christian. On balance therefore I would plump for the Jewish option as the safest.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

Would this analysis be performed within the “conventional reality” which is unreliable because it is “how phenomena appear to exist” and therefore “illusionary”.

Initially yes. However, please understand that whereas a bus lacks inherent existence (it's convential nature in fact merely imputed on it's parts by conceptual minds and it's parts merely imputed by conceptual minds etc right down to it's particles which also have parts as there is no such thing as a partless particle and therefore can not be considered to have intrinsic existence) it nonetheless functions to transport us from A to B. It has both conventional and ultimate natures. Likewise conventional concepts can be refined to go beyond concepts thus taking us from conventional reality (A)to an intellectual then experiential appreciation of emptiness (B).

Through correct analysis of the emptiness of (say) the 'I' or 'self' we can deconstruct the appearance of an inherently existant 'I' or 'self' so that what appears to our mind is not an inherently existant 'I' or 'self' but a merely imputed/empty/ 'I' or 'self'. The appearance of an inherently existant bus or 'I' is mere appearance to mind.

So first we identify something as having 'self' nature, then through correct analysis we find it has no 'self' nature and is mere appearance to mind. This is the Yogacara or mind only position mis-represented by Nigel earlier in this thread through misunderstanding wikepedia. The yogacara is a tempory but necessary position to reach.

The next stage the Prasangika (also misrepresented by Nigel)shows that whereas there are no objects existing separate from mind, there can be no mind without objects! Objects and mind are dependent-related. This is a much more subtle position to understand and takes a good deal of study.

As all phenomena are 'empty' or lacking in inherent existence so is the mind which appears to itself and can be made an object of meditation that is also negated through correct analysis. The effect or wow factor experienced upon finding the object of our analytical meditation on the emptiness of our 'I' or 'self' is unforgetable but is as of nothing compared to finding the 'clearlight' during tantric meditation. This is like being sucked through a portal into another dimension altogether (like something from the film 'The Matrix' and, as is this is done in definable stages we experience the deconstruction of our 'projected' world, self and mind in a profound and intimate way that would blow your socks off. There is no duality at this stage, no Descartes and no Kant, and no 'idealist'.

quote:

As far as analysis within enlightenment through meditation goes, many other faiths or beliefs encounter a similar experience without the Buddha’s teachings. They all explain it by using there own differing beliefs, and Gods, perhaps they can also be explained in purely psychological ways. This can apply IMHO to the “levels of mind” also.

Of course. I have never denied this, in fact I have said the same thing more than once on this thread. There are aspects of the qabala (or Kaballah?)- the real esoteric tradition of Judaism (not the bunch of loonies our Madge is mixed up with)which are very similar to tantric meditation and the Sufis too know something. However I doubt they have the same tradition of extensively documented DIY manuals that Buddhism has.

quote:

But I still contend that by its nature “idealism” cannot be refuted.

I am not sure I have been talking about 'Idealism' except in the very initial intellectual stage.

quote:

I believe Buddha said somthing like... if your roof is burning do you contemplate the nature of fire, throw a bucket of water over it?

I am happy you believe the Buddha said something of value. Proof that Buddha may yet save your life?

I have enjoyed our chats John, all the best to you.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

Joe,

Insofar as his mother was Jewish (which is the clincher here and regardless of what his father was, whoever he was/is) he was certainly Jewish, at least by birth and upbringing. Maybe he was an Essene or a Zealot or simply the heir to King David making an attempt to kick the Romans out - there is evidence for all of this (which of course does not make any of it true necessarily - (as a barrister friend of mine said 'there is no such thing as the truth only evidence')but on one thing I am sure, he was not the son of God and there is no evidence that he was. None. Insofar as he did not start Christianity being (allegedly) dead by that time he can certainly not be called a Christian. On balance therefore I would plump for the Jewish option as the safest.

Regards,

Erik

He was not Jewish. He did not have a mother.
He is the Son of God (not the Son of 'God and Mary'). Mary certainly was part of the process and his adopted mother, but not his natural , sexual mother.

God is not Jewish. He's not Gentile.
Therefore his son couldn't be either.

We are not saved by Jewish Blood, we are saved by the Blood of God.

He grew up in the Jewish area, with and around Jews but that doesn't make him Jewish anymore than I am.

BTW I have no problem with Jews, nor any other bloodline of people (before we start howling at each oother).

Just pointing out a fact.

The Son Of God cannot be a Jew.
Then Mary's mother would be Jesus' grandmother!

I am happy you believe the Buddha said something of value. Proof that Buddha may yet save your life?

If not this one perhaps next time round.

I am sure the Buddha had much of value to say. After 2500 years the Buddha would be long forgotten if this was not the case.
I have also found this thread to be very interesting and informative. You have explained a complex concept very ably for such a condensed medium.

Tell me, did the Buddha leave any personally written documents, or are the teachings passed on through others, as Socrates for instance, or Jesus for that mater?

Hoping you attain Nirvana, John.

quote:

Tell me, did the Buddha leave any personally written documents, or are the teachings passed on through others, as Socrates for instance, or Jesus for that mater?

John,

Aparently he left no writings although he is alleged to have drawn a diagram of the 'wheel of life'. His teachings were meant as practical advice for those assembled to hear them and he gave his teaching according to their capacities. There is some debate as to whether he meant his teachings to lead to a religion at all. Buddhism consists of the hinayana or lesser path and the mahayana or great path (these terms are mahayana terms). The hinayanists say Buddha never taught the mahayana and the mahayanists say he did but they were secret teachings given only to initiates . Buddhas Sutras are common to both traditions but the tantric teachings are unique to the mahayana. Buddhas disciples got together after Buddhas passing (the death of his body ) and assembled the entire teachings from memory and passed it on (allegedly)taking nothing away and adding nothing in an unbroken pure lineage from then until now. In the mahayana the teachings are passed down by qualified spiritual guides who are said to be of the same nature as Buddha.

Here there are possibly many simularities to Christianity? 'Son of God' is like saying 'same nature as God or one with God' i.e pure? It is said that without the blessings of a spiritual guide and initiation into the path (baptism in christianity?) there can be no enlightment. It may be that Jesus taught in the same way, writing nothing and teaching to the lights of those assembled which is maybe why (and this is strictly my speculation) that 'nobody comes to the father but by me' may not have been meant to mean universally applicable to all people at all times but was maybe meant for those assembled as in 'nobody here today (at this baptism)comes to the father but by me'and not 'nobody ever...'. Who knows? Not moi. just a thought. Again there are several schools of thought that Jesus never meant his teachings to be a religion. The Quamran scrolls found in 1946 and translated by the catholic church but not all have been released according to a book I read (which may or may not be reliable - who knows?)and those that have been released are highly damaging to the church so how explosive is the stuff they have not released? Who knows? Not moi. It's all a big headache isn't it, who to trust?

I don't think I explain Buddhist philosophy very well, it's actually been 9 years since I read much in detail but I have been following the quantum buddhism stuff closely.

Only an hour ago on the phone a friend of mine read out a blindingly good piece that seemingly effortlessly explained extremely complicated aspects of the Madhymaka. There are some teachers out there who do it so well and I am just a bumbling twit in comparison. I may post it tomorrow.

All the best John,

Erik

quote:

He was not Jewish. He did not have a mother.
He is the Son of God (not the Son of 'God and Mary'). Mary certainly was part of the process and his adopted mother, but not his natural , sexual mother.

God is not Jewish. He's not Gentile.
Therefore his son couldn't be either.

We are not saved by Jewish Blood, we are saved by the Blood of God.[/QUOTE]

Joe,

..And the evidence for that is what exactly? How can we know it to be true? Because the bible tells us so right? After all is there any other authority? And how do we know it is all true? It's because it's God's word right? And how do we know it's God's word? It's because the bible tells us right?

And how do we know the bible is true....? Oh dear here we go again. (Erik has a good yawn)have you read any academic biblical scholarship or do you only get your information from american Tv evangelists?

Yours (yawning again)

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Being born in the land of the Jews and not being of Roman parentage would tend to indicate being Jewish.

I think the local moyle provided his services ( sp?)

M

Hi Mike,

After long and careful thought I believe you to be right in this .

Cheers,

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by Milo Tweenie:

There were also plenty of non-Jews living in the area at the time, collectively known as Gentiles, for example the Samaritans. They would have been quite happy keeping pigs.

Look what you started dear Fredrik; hope you're pleased with yourself

Dear Milo,

The question was posted in good faith, but though I am far too stupid to keep up with the debate, I am completely delighted by the lovely display of good nature and manners, and this is all the more remarkable considering that religion and science have been touched on!

There are indeed gentlemen left in the world...

I am rather heartened by what I started! Fredrik

Eric said:

quote:

And the evidence for that is what exactly? How can we know it to be true? Because the bible tells us so right? After all is there any other authority? And how do we know it is all true? It's because it's God's word right? And how do we know it's God's word? It's because the bible tells us right?

It's good enough for me.
What you wish to believe or not is utterly irrelevant to my beliefs.
I would expect the same in return from you.

What I find most curious is people like you even bothering to argue something which clearly annoys you, nor even believe in.

[/QUOTE]
It's good enough for me.
What you wish to believe or not is utterly irrelevant to my beliefs.
I would expect the same in return from you.

What I find most curious is people like you even bothering to argue something which clearly annoys you, nor even believe in.[/QUOTE]

Dear Joe,

What is good enough for you? The total absense of any evidence whatsoever? Well fair enough, it is your life and I respect your decision more than you know but when you seek to lecture me on what you claim to be 'facts' be very sure you will be challenged to offer your evidence in the spirit of intellectual exploration and not mere annoyance for which there is also no evidence.

If your 'facts' are just mere opinions or blind faith (blind faith being a belief in something for which there is no proof?) then perhaps you could chose your words more carefully.

Your last sentence shows you have A/ misread my mood and B/contradicts yourself and words such as 'pot' 'kettle' and 'black' spring to my mind. .

However, in the spirit of intellectual curiousity and because I like you, I am wondering if you would or could explain your view that Jesus had no mother. A view not shared by the Catholic church who, so it seems to me, deified Holy Mary not that I claim to be an expert in matters Catholic.

In view of your superior knowlege and unique insight I was wondering if you could explain how Jesus was born? Did he descend to earth on a cloud for example? Or maybe materialise out of thin air?

Even if he was the result of a virgin birth by holy artificial insemination would it still not be true to say he was still born and mothered by Mary? Or was there no insemination, no union of holy squigler and human egg? Did Jesus just materialise in Mary's womb or just suddenly appear in the manger wrapped in swaddling clothes clutching the adoption papers? I'm trying to cover all the bases here Joe, just to help you out.

Also please advise as to why you find it curious that anyone would argue about something they don't believe in. It seems to me that for any argument to take place it is a requirement for one party at least to adopt an alternative view or how can an argument take place? Of course please do not feel obliged to answer any of my questions if you don't feel up to it.

All the best Joe,

Erik

quote:

Then Mary's mother would be Jesus' grandmother!

Yes, after careful consideration I believe you are totally correct in this respect at least.

Keep it coming Joe.

Regards,

Erik

Faith is a difficult concept for those who have none.

Perhaps it is best described using a 'fact', as you put them.

Just because one has not been presented with the 'proof' of the existance of God, doesn't mean that the proof is not out there, only that it has not been presented.

You do not see people in China breathing at the moment, do you? Does that mean there are no people in China breathing at the moment?

The rest I will decline to answer. However the answers are in your own questions if you look hard enough.

Morning Erik

I am puzzled by your position regarding my arguments.

You have carefully and constructively put forward your case and the evidence supporting Buddhism. If someone were to now post a statement that there was no evidence in support of Buddhism, none, I’m sure you would refer them back to your previous posts and say excuse me, look again.

I have put forward my case and the evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus and have been careful not to resort to “because the Bible says so” circular reasoning. My contention is that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, proceeded to do something utterly extraordinary in death and that this provides the cornerstone of the belief that he was who he said he was. It’s clearly not absolute proof, if it were it would not be faith, and it needs to be taken in the context of the whole history of God’s dealing with the nation of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament. But many reasonable, intelligent people have concluded that it is sufficient evidence for them.

Interestingly, I understand that Islam and the Koran (although I’ve not read it) also accepts Jesus’ existence and resurrection, but explains it by saying that he never actually died in the first place.

What I’m puzzled by is that you continue to say that there is no evidence for Jesus being the Son of God. None. Do you consider that the line of reasoning that I’ve put forward is completely worthless, or are you choosing to ignore it?

My question is not remotely personal, nor have I taken offence, I’m just puzzled.

"Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names" - the Gita

Firstly, people should be free to practice whatever faith they choose without harrasment or ridicule, with the proviso that they do not insist others believe the same as they do.
However, I have read many compelling accounts of the supposed life of Jesus and origins of Christianity. The central conclusion is that there is little to no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Some accounts insist that the prominent Jewish historian Josephus supposedly made no reference to a Jesus, this being added later to the gospels by incredulous medieaval monks who, whilst copying the Bible, assumed this omission to be a striking oversight on Josephus's part. Other accounts state that Josephus did, indeed, mention a Jesus, but only as one prophet or rebel amongst many. Most historians estimate the gospels to have been written c. AD 60-70.

There are many historical accounts of the Jewish rebellions against Roman rule in Judea at the time of Jesus's supposed existence. It was commonplace for individuals top assume leadership of these rebellions and promise salvation from Roman tyranny. I believe the figure of Jesus is best viewed as a composite character of these many historical characters.

The most significant influence on Christianity was, of course, Judaism. However, Christianity also absorbed elements of the Persian cult of Mithras and Egyptian gods such as Osiris. The phenomena of ressurection also features in these belief systems. It is also widely accepted by both historians and theologians that Christianity originated not with Jesus but with Saint Paul, which would fit with the notoin of the gospels noty being written until many years after the period in which Jesus supposedly lived.
Just my two cents.

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:

So first we identify something as having 'self' nature, then through correct analysis we find it has no 'self' nature and is mere appearance to mind. This is the Yogacara or mind only position mis-represented by Nigel earlier in this thread through misunderstanding wikepedia. The yogacara is a tempory but necessary position to reach.

The next stage the Prasangika (also misrepresented by Nigel)shows that whereas there are no objects existing separate from mind, there can be no mind without objects! Objects and mind are dependent-related.

I thought at first you were a resonable sort of bloke but given the above it seems you are as arrogant as any theist.

I misrepresnted nothing. You pointed me to a link that you said established the scientific basis of quantum Buddhism. I said it did not establish such a link because there was no "science" (as most people would understand the term) in it.

Your arguments are entirely philosophical and are no more verifiable through empircal or any other method than those of any religion. If you choose to belive in reincarnation and emptiness and nirvana, be my guest.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
Firstly, people should be free to practice whatever faith they choose without harrasment or ridicule, with the proviso that they do not insist others believe the same as they do.
However, I have read many compelling accounts of the supposed life of Jesus and origins of Christianity. The central conclusion is that there is little to no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Some accounts insist that the prominent Jewish historian Josephus supposedly made no reference to a Jesus, this being added later to the gospels by incredulous medieaval monks who, whilst copying the Bible, assumed this omission to be a striking oversight on Josephus's part. Other accounts state that Josephus did, indeed, mention a Jesus, but only as one prophet or rebel amongst many. Most historians estimate the gospels to have been written c. AD 60-70.

There are many historical accounts of the Jewish rebellions against Roman rule in Judea at the time of Jesus's supposed existence. It was commonplace for individuals top assume leadership of these rebellions and promise salvation from Roman tyranny. I believe the figure of Jesus is best viewed as a composite character of these many historical characters.

The most significant influence on Christianity was, of course, Judaism. However, Christianity also absorbed elements of the Persian cult of Mithras and Egyptian gods such as Osiris. The phenomena of ressurection also features in these belief systems. It is also widely accepted by both historians and theologians that Christianity originated not with Jesus but with Saint Paul, which would fit with the notoin of the gospels noty being written until many years after the period in which Jesus supposedly lived.
Just my two cents.

Malky,

A valuable two cents. I have also read the same stuff and make the same conclusions.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

I misrepresnted nothing. You pointed me to a link that you said established the scientific basis of quantum Buddhism. I said it did not establish such a link because there was no "science" (as most people would understand the term) in it.

Your arguments are entirely philosophical and are no more verifiable through empircal or any other method than those of any religion. If you choose to belive in reincarnation and emptiness and nirvana, be my guest.[/QUOTE]

Dear Nigel,

I have checked back and find that there are several misrepresentations many of which were posted by Andrew and not as I thought by you for example:

'The description of Prasangika philosophy seems to state that it is a long way of saying "I don't know". Yogacara seems to take a psycological view'.

I apologise to you for this most sincerely.

However, your other statements, as quotes above are misprepresentations. I asked before did you actually download the chapter from the quantum buddhism site and read it or just look at the intro? If you read the introduction and first chapter I am curious as to how you conclude there is no science there. If you can answer this and explain I think we may have a constructive way forward.


As for this: Your arguments are entirely philosophical and are no more verifiable through empircal or any other method than those of any religion.

This is spectacularly incorrect. I find it hard to believe that you have read all my posts at all. Do you merely suppose I am talking about what I have read when in fact I am telling you about what I have experienced. You are like a man who upon hearing there are birds without feathers living in the antartic simply refuses to believe it. Yes, reading a description about penguins in a book is no proof penguins exist but you could go and check for yourself and in this respect you will find the existence of penguins is every bit as true as the existence of the chair in which you sit. Likewise you would find, if you had the motivation to do so, that everything I have said is verifiable experientially. Everything. I know. I have been there. If I have not impressed this upon you it is either becasue I am poor at explaining it - this may well be the case or you are not good at understanding it - this also has to be a distinct possibility. Maybe it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
If objects cannot exist without the mind, mankind - or conscious thought - would have to have been around for about 16 billion years, or however old the universe is supposed to be nowadays.

M

Hi Mike,

A good point and seemingly unanswerable but in fact there is an answer which I will post later.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:


Dear Nigel,

As for this: Your arguments are entirely philosophical and are no more verifiable through empircal or any other method than those of any religion.

This is spectacularly incorrect.... Do you merely suppose I am talking about what I have read when in fact I am telling you about what I have experienced.... I know. I have been there. If I have not impressed this upon you it is either becasue I am poor at explaining it - this may well be the case or you are not good at understanding it - this also has to be a distinct possibility.

Regards,

Erik

Erik

I have no doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs. I have no doubt that many Christians are sincere in their beliefs. You, and they, say that they have experienced what they promote and that their way is the true way. Perhaps you are all correct - or none of you.

However it is not sufficient (for me) simply for Christians, or Buddhists, or any other faith to say "I believe therefore it is true". It is also rather trite to imply that anyone who does not agree in some way does not "understand". Perhaps those who do not "understand" are in fact far more discerning and subtle than those who follow a doctrine.

quote:

My contention is that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, proceeded to do something utterly extraordinary in death and that this provides the cornerstone of the belief that he was who he said he was. It’s clearly not absolute proof, if it were it would not be faith, and it needs to be taken in the context of the whole history of God’s dealing with the nation of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament. But many reasonable, intelligent people have concluded that it is sufficient evidence for them.
[QUOTE]

What other authority for the assertion that Jesus was the son of God is there other than the bible? There is no corroborating archeological or historical evidence (how could there be?)there is only words that are over 2000 years old. The old testament states that God destroys his own people and I think it unwise to recruit this old testament god to give support for any claim. I agree many formidably and learned people agree with you but of course there are many formidably bright and learned people who do not. We can not count them all up and even if we did it would still be proof of nothing other than prove what people beleived or disbelieved. Your argument is plausible in some respects insofar as what might seem resonable given the cultural and political climate of the time but again this is no evidence as such in my view. Ultimately to prove Jesus is the son of god you must prove 3 things - 1/ there is a god 2/ there is a man who really lived and really stated he was the son and 3/ he was actually the son.

Proving point 1/ is impossible and as I say there are numerous elegant refutations.

point 2/ This is highly contentious and there is evidence for and against. The evicence for is hearsay and the evidence against historical.

point 3/ irrelevant if you can't prove point 1/.


[QUOTE] Interestingly, I understand that Islam and the Koran (although I’ve not read it) also accepts Jesus’ existence and resurrection, but explains it by saying that he never actually died in the first place.

I think the koran says Jesus was a prophet like mahommed was a prophet but was a lesser prophet than mahommed. I dont know enough to comment but I assume at least they do agree that jesus did actually die even if they disagree on how he died.

quote:

What I’m puzzled by is that you continue to say that there is no evidence for Jesus being the Son of God. None. Do you consider that the line of reasoning that I’ve put forward is completely worthless, or are you choosing to ignore it?

Milo, honestly I thought I had answered you and would not dream of ignoring your reasoning. Your reasoning has a sort of internal logic if that makes sense, Im not sure how to explain it. You have some knowlege of the cultural and political climate etc. but when you say Jesus must have been ressurected because there was no body I believe your reasoning breaks down and I have said as much. Please write in detail if you think I have missed a point or not understood a point or have ignored anything and I assure (that unlike others who have not answered challenges)I will do my best to answer you. My point has always been 'what is truly knowable' in this whole confusing arena and what can be checked and experienced and I have taken great pains to have a balanced dialogue about it and appreciate our debate and your contribution. I like a good robust debate and I hope my robust manner falls short of rudeness and even redicule as I might redicule the thinking but not the faith which to me is quite different. I have said, and I believe it to be true, that I am happy if people are christians as long as they don't try to shove it down my throat and that they are capeble of discussing their faith in a reasonable manner even if some of their arguments are not, in my view, reasonable.

quote:

My question is not remotely personal, nor have I taken offence, I’m just puzzled.

I think this whole arena is deeply puzzling and it is easy to clutch at what appear to be certainties. The strange thing is, as much as I am deeply suspicious of blind faith in chritianity, Islam or even in Buddhism I secretly envy those who have it.

All the best Milo,

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:


Dear Nigel,

As for this: Your arguments are entirely philosophical and are no more verifiable through empircal or any other method than those of any religion.

This is spectacularly incorrect.... Do you merely suppose I am talking about what I have read when in fact I am telling you about what I have experienced.... I know. I have been there. If I have not impressed this upon you it is either becasue I am poor at explaining it - this may well be the case or you are not good at understanding it - this also has to be a distinct possibility.

Regards,

Erik

Erik

I have no doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs. I have no doubt that many Christians are sincere in their beliefs. You, and they, say that they have experienced what they promote and that their way is the true way. Perhaps you are all correct - or none of you.

However it is not sufficient (for me) simply for Christians, or Buddhists, or any other faith to say "I believe therefore it is true". It is also rather trite to imply that anyone who does not agree in some way does not "understand". Perhaps those who do not "understand" are in fact far more discerning and subtle than those who follow a doctrine.

Nigel,

I really know where you are coming from and I feel we are not so far apart. In many ways I feel exactly as you do about people who confuse belief with truth. However, I believe you have missed the point. I can only advise you to go back and read more carefully. I know this sounds dreadfully patronising but wrapping up every potentially controversial comment in delicate silk takes time and I am not just replying to you but others as well and it very time consuming. I am sorry if this comes across as arrogance, it is just that I have written more on this thread than everyone else put together so please understand I mean no personal offence.

I believe much of what some take as truth is in fact belief. If asked to explain they merely quote the bible. I have pointed out in a fair amount of detail why Buddhism is massively different in this respect and I don't know why you do not see the difference. I am not talking about mere philosophy and I have explained how buddhism goes beyond mere concepts. Buddhist philosophy is not the whole of buddhism either. It works on many levels but mostly it works on clearly pratical levels. I do not feel like repeating myself or re-explaining or going into more detail but if you wish I am happy to cut and paste relevant points to help you understand the difference in how buddhism works and if you still dont get it, then my final position is the six of one and half a dozen of the other as previously stated. If I say it is possible to do X in a meditation then I do so because 1/ I have read about it and it made some sort of sense.

2/ I talked to others who said they knew people whom they thought could do it.

3/ I talked to people who said they could do it and described their experiences

4/ Learnt to do it myself and 'went there' thus proving on an experintial level it does work.

The fact that you can't see me go there or it can't be measured completely (brain waves can be measured and radical changes are recorded and well documented)is not proof I a wrong any more than you not seeing me go to the antarctic to see penguins is not proof penguins exist.

I know very well how the lives of Christians are changed when out of faith and being say, born again affects their lives and how they confuse that experience with 'truth' but if you think I am talking about some pink and fluffy feeling I get when meditating or reading philosophy then you are wrong, you do not understand and you just dont get it IMO. I try to take some responsibilty for this by saying I am not the best at explaining these things and from this distance I don't know how best you take on board information so I dont know how best to shift my style to meet your needs. At the end of the day I suspect you are not really interested and see what you want to see but appearances are deceptive and all communication fraught so I may be wrong. Please advise.

All the best Nigel

Erik