[Buddha-l] Is Buddhism a Finished System?

[Richard Hayes]

On Tuesday 26 June 2007 17:45, Chan Fu wrote:

> > I love proofs. May I see the steps in this one please?
>
> Certainly - just search for "psychoanalytic cures".

I'm still waiting for a proof. Simply restating your position flippantly 
hardly provides what I'm looking for. Do you have anything to offer, or are 
you just killing time until time kills you?

> > > Christianity
> > > Islam, Hinduism, et al have been proven to be insanity.
> >
> > I would also like to see the steps in this proof.
>
> Proof left to the student, though Dawkins et al have
> done a good job at it, as has our present government,
> oxymoronically. Google isn't franchised in New Mexico?

Sorry, but I've never been a very good student. I'm afraid I need to see your 
argument spelled out in more detail. Again, flippancy does not provide much 
help to one asking a sincere question. 

Meanwhile, you might meditate on the "mission statement" of buddha-l, posted 
on the buddha-l site:

\begin{quote}
Buddha-l functions as an open forum for informed discussion of topics relating 
to the history, literature and languages, fine arts, philosophy, practices 
and institutions of all forms of Buddhism.
  
The primary purpose of this list is to provide a forum for reflective 
discussion. It is open to all persons inside and outside the academic context 
who wish to engage in substantial discussion of topics relating to Buddhism 
and Buddhist studies.

Buddha-l is not to be used for proselytizing for or against Buddhism in 
general, any particular form of Buddhism, or any other religion or 
philosophy, nor is it to be used as a forum for making unsubstantiable 
confessions of personal conviction. Lively debate is welcome, but we aim for 
a deep concern both for the matter being discussed and for those 
participating in the conversation.
\end{quote}

> Don't be silly. If I was "civilized" I might end up like you
> and we wouldn't be able to have such a good conversation
> at all and you'd have sent me to Guantanamo long since...

So far I have not seen very much of anything resembling good conversation 
between us. I'd like to see some one of these days, but few of my wishes come 
true. 

As for Guantánamo, I have yet to hear of anyone who deserves to be treated as 
people are reportedly treated there. Rest assured that no one would be sent 
there if I had anything to do with it. No, I lie. I'd send Dick Cheney and 
George W. Bush there in a heartbeat. And Donald Rumsfeld. And Paul Wolfowitz. 
And Scooter Libby. And probably Jeff Sessions and Orrin Hatch. And Rush 
Limbaugh. And probably even Bill O'Reilly. And for sure Karl Rove. But not 
you. And no one from Canada, Finland, the UK, Tibet, China, Singapore, 
Thailand, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel, Chile, Colombia 
or Mexico. Not even anyone from Conshohocken, Pennsylvania (if there is such 
a place -- probably isn't, since I just made it up).

> Aren't "philosophers" just "bible writers"? 

None that I am aware of. But you no doubt know a great deal more about 
philosophers and bibles than I.

> What happens if one doesn't need either? 

No one needs anything but food, water and air. So it's no big accomplishment 
not to need either philosophers or bible writers. It's like not needing to 
meditate or not needing a government.

> Is one, then, a "buddhist" by undefinition?

Is everyone who can sit still for an hour thereby a Quaker? My guess is that 
it takes more than silence to make one a Quaker and more than disdain for 
philosophy and bibles to make one a Buddhist. But again, that is only a 
guess. For a definitive answer I must defer to your omniscience in these 
matters.

-- 
Dayamati