[Buddha-l] Bourgeois Buddhism

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

On 06-10-11 17:41, Federico Andino wrote:
> Ok, but it is a fact that Nichiren are buddhists? Or the concept of
> buddhism is not contradictory with, say, their reading of the Lotus
> Sutra? If not, what does happen to them?
>
> n
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Nichiren's never denied the teaching of 
the Buddha. Shinran only claimed that the original way of the arhant is 
to difficult in our time. It is like someone who likes to become a 
veggie, but needs to eat meat on doctors orders. So I think we can count 
them in unless they decide to change their view.

erik
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Erik Hoogcarspel<jehms at xs4all.nl>  wrote:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>