[Buddha-l] Enlightenment as dogma

[Stefan Detrez]

2010/10/14 lemmett at talk21.com <lemmett at talk21.com>

> > I agree with Stephan that this particular doctrine has many
> > of the characteristics of dogma (i.e. unquestioned and
> > unquestionable belief) and the analogy to the belief in
> > Christ's resurrection is a good one.
>
> But I do think that there's a difference there. I think a non literal
> reading of Christ's resurrection is one thing and the Buddha's nirvana
> another because you can get to something much closer to the literal meaning
> of nirvana while not believing in something incredible. With the
> resurrection it seems much more like a case of either he did or he didn't.
> Which reminds me of Schopenhauer and pantheism
>
>
How can the resurrection be non-literal? How do you decide what is to be
understood literally and what non-literally? Should Mara's temptation be
understood as literal? And the presence of dakhini's, celestial beings, etc?

Stefan