[Buddha-l] Bourgeois Buddhism

[Federico Andino]

I agree with this, but here on it´s difficult: metaphysics is
something that, it seems, the historical Buddha didn´t put much stock
into.

F

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Stefan Detrez <stefan.detrez at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/10/6 Federico Andino <dingirfecho at gmail.com>
>
>> > Exactly, which is how florists can determine the difference between a
>> rose
>> > and a tulip. It's no different with 'being Buddhist'.
>> >
>> > Stefan
>>
>> Indeed, but we`re talking a lot of groups left out of a
>> generalization. In that case, our generalization might have to go.
>>
>>
> I agree. A lot of groups will be left out, but the generalization doens't
> have to go. The generalizatoin contains important characteristics of what it
> is to be Buddhist. Less important characteristics will fall out of the
> generalization, but remain nonetheless contributive to the establishment of
> a *particular* identity. Depending on the perspective of science, the
> practitioner or metaphysics, some characteristics will take a different
> priority, will or won't fit a generalization. Maybe metaphysics is a good
> starting point as is suggested by most of you active in this thread.
>
> Stefan
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>