[Buddha-l] Jesus is Buddha?

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 00:01 +0100, Benito Carral wrote:

>    If  by  "some  people" you refer to the followers of
> the  Buddha, I would bet that they knew something about
> the founder of their school.

I'm not a gambling man. You'll have to find someone else to bet with
you.

> > Everything  we  have,  and the only thing we can ever
> > have, is a fictional representation.
> 
>    That's your belief.

Yes. I am not in the habit of saying things that I don't believe. Now,
if you would like to help me out, you can perhaps show me how to be sure
that this belief is false. If you can do so, I shall gladly and swiftly
change my belief.

> Let me quote Conze here:

Go ahead and quote authorities to your heart's content. But please tell
me why I should believe them first, especially when they are as outdated
as Conze.

> > [...] I have never met anyone who tried to teach that
> > Buddhism has no doctrine of rebirth. Have you?
> 
>    Yes,  I  have,  and I have also met people who teach
> that Buddhism has nothing to do with ethical trainings.

You are less fortunate than I, for I have never met such a person.
Perhaps such people exist only in Spain. After all, in Sevilla I saw a
sign advertising Flamenco Yoga. I suppose anyone who can do Flamenco
Yoga can also teach that Buddhism has no doctrine of rebirth.

>    I  don't  know  if you are familiar with the studies about    the
> effectiveness    of    the    different psychotherapies, they can be
> good food for thinking.

Yes, I am. The effectiveness of psychotherapy is something that can be
studied scientifically by impartial observers. Tell me, can you cite
some scientific studies that show how effective Buddhism is in helping
people attain an end of rebirth?

> Anyway,  rebirth is an integral part of Buddhism

Tell me, which of the four noble truths discusses rebirth?

> what  you  are really talking about is about using some
> Buddhist techniques out of context.

All I have said is that the four foundations of mindfulness and metta-
bhavana seem to be rather effective in reducing dukkha. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but is reducing dukkha not the principal issue in Buddhism?

> As  I have already explained, rebirth is key for the
> meaning-giving  aspect  of  Buddhism

Is is key for you. Not everyone requires this key to derive considerable
meaning from Buddhist teachings. I could probably come up with hundreds
of such people.

> as Carl Jung wrote in his _Modern Man in Search of a Soul:_
> 
>           About  a third of my cases are suffering from
>           no  clinically  defineable neurosis, but from
>           the  senselessness  and  emptiness  of  their
>           lives.  This  can be described as the general
>           neurosis of our time.

And what exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that blind faith in
rebirth would cure the neuroses of the unfortunate people?

> Buddhism is not a kind of Prozac for making easier our samsaric existence.

You have a genius for saying things that are true but completely
irrelevant to what is being discussed. Kindly explain what Prozac has to
do with Christian Lindtner, about whom you claimed to be talking, or
about anyone else who claims to be teaching Buddhism. Please do you best
to keep from getting distracted to matters that are off topic.


-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico