[Buddha-l] Bourgeois Buddhism

[andy]

Margaret Gouin wrote:
> 
> Stefan, even in the hardest of hard sciences there is no such thing as
> 'decisive proof', just stronger or weaker support for propositions.
> 
> 'Setting up a definition' is rather like making a proposition:
> IF person A claims to be a Buddhist,
> THEN we should expect behaviour B
> 

At the least, I would expect Metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha, the 
Brahmavihara, or at least an acknowledgement of falling short of these ideals.  

And this is the point, we are not dealing with hard science here, but with 
doctrine, which can specify a priori.  And decisive proofs can follow from 
doctrine, unless that doctrine is proven false.    Where does this leave us?  
-- 
 Andy Stroble, 
University of Hawaii