[Buddha-l] Bourgeois Buddhism

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

On 06-10-11 15:59, Federico Andino wrote:
> It is a fact only in a fixed point in time. It may waver, but the
> continuation of it would make a way of life, I think.
In that case it's either up to you or not. In the first case you have a 
decision to make, in the second you have to accept it. The reasons for 
your decision can be valid or not, not true. Truth is about the relation 
between language and facts, i.e. our conventional world. Now Buddhism is 
a fact because people have decided they want to be Buddhists and 
probably they will continue to do so in the future. The reasons why they 
chose to do so are not facts. These reasons can only be based on the 
meaning Buddhism as a teaching or philosophy has for them. This 
discussion is about the question if among those reasons there are any 
that are specific for Buddhism. In the factual world we don't know what 
reasons all people have for their decicions. So there the discussion has 
no meaning. The only way to discuss this is to stay in a conceptual 
world, where not fact but reasons are decisive.

erik
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Erik Hoogcarspel<jehms at xs4all.nl>  wrote:
>> On 06-10-11 13:20, Federico Andino wrote:
>>>> I detect at least three approaches. One is scientific, as Federico has laid it
>>>> out. The other is a practictioner,  as I believe Jack gave us earlier.  But
>>>> then there is the philosophical, where we want to know not only what is the
>>>> case, and what works, but what is true, or at least self-consistent.
>>>>
>>>> This brings me back to my earlier question, why is the Buddhadharma different?
>>>> --
>>>> Andy Stroble,
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> In a philosophical context, self-consistent does not necessarily equals truth.
>>> So something can be inconsisten and true, like kinds of buddhism or my
>>> comitment to diet.
>>>
>> I think this is  a false comparison. Your commitment is a fact and not a
>> way of life.
>> According to the Buddha is that what his teaching made difficult to
>> understand the concept of pratItyasamutpAda, which was a step away from
>> the existing concepts of causal relationship.
>>
>> erik