« Buddhism and gnosticism | Main | Letting the aggregates and nonself go »

May 18, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

In the blog, our author writes: '"The doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state."

The above doesn't appear to exclude Buddhism'

I'd have to disagree with the blog author, since in the so-defined secularism, the notion of "well-being of mankind in the present life" neither acknowledges liberation from becoming nor tries to go beyond "present life" (ie samsaric) presumptions about how to define "well-being" (In other words the considerations about what constitutes present-life well-being will be khandhically motivated, to make up an awkward adverb). Since Buddhism is principally concerned with "considerations drawn from a belief in...a future state" ie how to make an end of re-becoming (a future state) of which secularism is defined as excluding, I would say it does indeed fairly exclude Buddhism (and this is why Harris's anti-religionism goes hand in hand with his secularism), not even to mention the inferior path siding with merit (which is entirely based on considerations of a future state) which the Buddha was known to preach to many who apparently were not ready for the transcendent noble path. Either path is definitively excluded from secularism.

One of the main reasons I keep reading this blog is that I can clearly sense the clear flow between the super-intuitive and the author of this blog."It takes one to know one" you know. Now when you have evolved so far as to have broken through the thick crust of the skandhas and established a firm communion with the superintuitive (Pure Mind) you are bound to upset contemporary dogma including confused, rigid and mentally unstable defenders of an imaginary dharma that has very little to do with the real thing.

The real word, that gains power and a lasting attraction in the hearts and minds of the needing is the one supported by a pure spirit, not one offered by spiritually impoverished philistines.

You, in typical error, said "There is nothing in Buddhism that goes against secularism"

However everything in Buddhasasana ('buddhism') goes against the agnostic based secularism Ibn Rushd who believed in the separation of philosophy and religion. Of which as the greeks and indians knew, there is no differentiation between the two.

Your brain has turned into tapioca pudding, old man.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo