[Buddha-l] Enlightenment as dogma

[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?

Hi,
I was just suggesting that Buddhism is more amenable to non literal interpretations because of the nature of the miracles in the Bible; I don't know how Christ's resurrection could be non literal, perhaps it could be seen as a parable about life and death but I am not at all familiar with the Bible. With respect to Buddhism and what to take literally I assumed that that was up to the believer / practitioner, though I myself am not so very concerned with unpacking every item of doctrine and am happy just to assume that it can generally be done. I probably think that the four noble truths abstracted from rebirth are the important ones to have some idea about, that if you can't believe in these in any form then maybe there's little point in being too bothered by Buddhism. Ok, thanks again,

Luke