What you are saying is: If Jesus was a magical person as stated in the Bible, then all miscreants go to hell. — Olivier5

I'm not the one saying that, Christianity (most schools of it, anyway) are saying that.

Do you want to divorce the Jesus of the Bible from Christianity, as well as divorce the Bible from Christianity?

I'm not the one saying that — baker

So what are you saying, exactly? Sorry but I'm tired of guessing.

Sorry but I'm tired of guessing. — Olivier5

Really?

My point, (which was clear and is really unnecessary in this otherwise interesting discussion) is that if Jesus was not real then Christianity, as is practiced by 2.5 billion people, is false.

f you are saying we should not disregard the importance of socioeconomic needs out of some lofty notion of wisdom then I agree. — Fooloso4

Absolutely.

Indeed, there have been Buddhist missionaries. But on the whole, they seem to function as a defense of Buddhism against the expansion of other religions; or they focus on spreading Buddhism for lay people (and monasticism only as an adjacent or auxiliary option); ie. the aims for such missionary work are worldly. (And some Buddhist missionary organizations seem to be intent primarily on making money ...)

As to your first question, the concepts of rebirth/reincarnation and karma play a central role in Dharmic religions. With them, among many other things, also the person's religious/spiritual status is explained, and their religious/spiritual prospects. With an outlook like that, there's not much that an outsider could see themselves do for another person.

The other factor is that in Dharmic religions, there is no threat of eternal damnation, there is no urgency of "get it right this time around or suffer forever, no second chances", so there is no metaphysical impetus to get people to convert, unlike in Abrahamic religions. — baker

Indeed! It could also be that buddhists are ok with coexisting other religions because they view them as simply alternative routes to the same destination - there being no concept of orthodoxa (right view), just various means to one ultimate end which is nirvana aka salvation.

Nagarjuna's Tetralemma
— TheMadFool

We've been over this. — baker

Right! I haven't been able to get my hands on a good explanation of Nagarjuna's tetralemma on the www. Do you know of any online resources I can bite into?

Does This definition help?

there being no concept of orthodoxa (right view), — TheMadFool

The first article on the 'eightfold path' is samma ditthi, generally translated as 'right view'. I think the proper translation of ‘orthodoxa’ is ‘right belief’ or ‘right worship’.

The first article on the 'eightfold path' is samma ditthi, generally translated as 'right view'. I think the proper translation of ‘orthodoxa’ is ‘right belief’ or ‘right worship’. — Wayfarer

Copy that! Thanks!

Does This definition help? — Wheatley

Yes!

Nagarjuna's Tetralemma

For a given proposition P,

1. P (P True).....No! [no affirmation]

2. Not P (P False).....No! [no negation]

[1 and 2 suggests that there's a third alternative for P, one of them being a contradiction]

3. P and Not P (P True and P False).....No! [the third alternative is not a contradiction]

4. Neither P nor not P (Neither P True nor P False).....No! [no third alternative for P]

The point of Nagarjuna's tetralemma is, for any proposition P, it's truth value is indeterminate but not that the fault lies in us i.e. there's a lacuna in our epistemology but in a Werner Heisenberg kinda way.

My point, (which was clear and is really unnecessary in this otherwise interesting discussion) is that if Jesus was not real then Christianity, as is practiced by 2.5 billion people, is false. — Tom Storm

Your point remained unstated until now, so it could not possibly be described as clear, at least not to me. I know it's clear in your mind but you still need to write it down.

Christians have good reasons to believe that Jesus was a historical character, and that his message is recorded by and large faithfully in the Gospels.

But I can't accept the historical narrative of Christianity, the belief in the second coming, and other fundamental elements of Christian dogma. That's where Buddhism has won out in my view, but I'm open to persuasion. — Wayfarer

I agree Im more drawn to Buddhism. I didn't know anything about it until I came across some books in it a few years ago and Einzelgangers channel on YouTube was a big inspiration. I also didn't realize that there was much more similarity between Ancient Greek philosophy, such as Stoicism and Buddhism. Western philosophy seems to have gone in a very different direction from the Middle Ages and had no contact anymore with Eastern philosophy in the modern period until the 19th century with Schopenhauer who was one of the very few western thinkers to be interested in Buddhism. Even today there seems to be a lot of ignorance in the west about Eastern philosophy.

:up: Interesting channel.

He explains it very lucidly. I like the way he tells stories in lot of his videos.

Note the similarity with Sartre's "Hell is the others".

It could also be that buddhists are ok with coexisting other religions because they view them as simply alternative routes to the same destination - there being no concept of orthodoxa (right view), just various means to one ultimate end which is nirvana aka salvation. — TheMadFool

I suppose there are California Buddhists who believe such a thing (a "California Buddhist" is a person with some interest in Buddhism, but who believes Buddhism is, basically, whatever you want it to be (as long as it's something politically correct)).

Otherwise, Buddhists believe there is Right View, and they don't believe that "all paths lead to the top of the mountain".

I haven't been able to get my hands on a good explanation of Nagarjuna's tetralemma on the www. Do you know of any online resources I can bite into? — TheMadFool

I'm quite sure I've already given you links. The key is in understanding why the terms "exist", "not exist", "neither exist nor not exist" don't apply to the Tathagata.

It could also be that buddhists are ok with coexisting other religions because they view them as simply alternative routes to the same destination - there being no concept of orthodoxa (right view), just various means to one ultimate end which is nirvana aka salvation.
— TheMadFool
I suppose there are California Buddhists who believe such a thing (a "California Buddhist" is a person with some interest in Buddhism, but who believes Buddhism is, basically, whatever you want it to be (as long as it's something politically correct)).

Otherwise, Buddhists believe there is Right View, and they don't believe that "all paths lead to the top of the mountain". — baker

I say that buddhism doesn't have the notion of orthodoxa (right belief) thanks @Wayfarer because it doesn't have an active proselytizing wing/arm unlike christianity and even islam. This wouldn't have been the case if buddhism considers itself orthodoxa as that would entail a religious responsibility to convert people.

This wouldn't have been the case if buddhism considers itself orthodoxa as that would entail a religious responsibility to convert people. — TheMadFool

You'll need to unpack this, spell out the assumptions you're working with.

Why should orthodoxy entail a religious responsibility to convert people?


(Although if this is what you believe, this means that you expect religious people to explain things to you, instead of you proactively looking into things on your own.)

Why should orthodoxy entail a religious responsibility to convert people? — baker

If a certain group is under the impression that its belief system is the right one (orthodoxa = right belief), that group will also consider it a duty/responsibility to edify others of it.

If a certain group is under the impression that its belief system is the right one (orthodoxa = right belief), that group will also consider it a duty/responsibility to edify others of it. — TheMadFool

Not at all.

Rather, my intuition is that such an individual or group who is certain to have found The Truth will protect it, seek to keep it for themselves, and share it only with those who prove themselves worthy of it.

If a certain group is under the impression that its belief system is the right one (orthodoxa = right belief), that group will also consider it a duty/responsibility to edify others of it.
— TheMadFool
Not at all.

Rather, my intuition is that such an individual or group who is certain to have found The Truth will protect it, seek to keep it for themselves, and share it only with those who prove themselves worthy of it. — baker

Are you saying some people are unworthy of the truth, orthodoxa (right belief), which is just another way of saying some people should suffer? Whatever belief system tells you that is surely not the right one.

Are you saying some people are unworthy of the truth, orthodoxa (right belief), which is just another way of saying some people should suffer? Whatever belief system tells you that is surely not the right one. — TheMadFool

A belief system that tells you that everyone is equally qualified for the highest attainments is surely not the right one.

Buddhism has no "no child left behind" policy.

A belief system that tells you that everyone is equally qualified for the highest attainments is surely not the right one.

Buddhism has no "no child left behind" policy. — baker

One word, bodhisattva. I'm told their primary goal is the liberation of all sentient beings. As for "no child left behind" policy, never heard of it though it squares with the bodhisattva's mission.

One word, bodhisattva. I'm told their primary goal is the liberation of all sentient beings. — TheMadFool

Inform yourself better. They're actually perfectly ready to leave you behind.

As for "no child left behind" policy, never heard of it though it squares with the bodhisattva's mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

Inform yourself better. They're actually perfectly ready to leave you behind. — baker

A bodhisattva who leaves (samsara) is not a bodhisattva.

no child left behind

I fail to see the relevance.

Inform yourself better. They're actually perfectly ready to leave you behind.
— baker

A bodhisattva who leaves (samsara) is not a bodhisattva. — TheMadFool

A bodhisattva cannot leave samsara; a bodhisattva is a samsaric being. "Bodhisattva" literally means 'buddha to be', or 'future buddha'. Ie. not a buddha yet.

no child left behind

I fail to see the relevance.

You keep talking about how religious people have the obligation to help others, e.g.

If a certain group is under the impression that its belief system is the right one (orthodoxa = right belief), that group will also consider it a duty/responsibility to edify others of it. — TheMadFool

I'm saying that in Early Buddhism, there is no such obligation.