[Buddha-l] Bourgeois Buddhism

[Federico Andino]

We document the behavior, theories, et al of those who call themselves
Buddhist and generalize.

F

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Stefan Detrez <stefan.detrez at gmail.com> wrote:
> If we can't decide what is Buddhist, how then do we recognize it as such?
>
> Stefan
> Op 5 okt. 2011 09:06 schreef "andy" <stroble at hawaii.edu> het volgende:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> buddha-l mailing list
>> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>