[Buddha-l] Enlightenment as dogma

[lemmett at talk21.com]

> whether
> the Buddha's nirvana is to be taken as Buddhist dogma - and
> it turns out it
> is

Really?

I think that's it's fine to say that the Buddha somehow did not suffer from impermanence because he taught so well on it. It need not be quite like concluding that Jesus died and rose again and if not it seems more like asking about the inspiration behind a great novel rather than anything metaphysical or psychological.

> and now the question is whether one is considered
> deluded if one
> doesn't 'see' what the Buddha has taught.

That's a funny way of asking whether Buddhists think what they say is true. Incidentally I have been called deluded by a Buddhist before.

> > be
> > > openminded, let certain critical alertness go,
> open yourself up to, etc.
> > > Is
> > > this not exactly the same language which says one
> should drop critical
> > > thinking and approach it with trust or put faith
> in it? How is that
> > > different from 'Open your heart and let Jesus
> in'?

With respect to this point I do think that the difference is that Christians do not think critically, not that being open minded is not critical; if we could not test beliefs while unsure about their efficacy then we would never be in error. 

I'll try not to bother the list so much now, it seems silly. 

All the best,

Luke