This is a response to the comment section Here
To your first question I respond:
I responded to my concerns about it in a two part factoid here and here
I don’t think anything has changed in my opinion, the obvious contradiction I hold is all explained there. Most of my disagreement is analytic, something that does not matter except in so far as people understand the words. For instance: the use of God rather than god. God is loaded with christian connotations hence the G… it’s His name. The Buddhist traditions who have god(s) to my knowledge do not have a God.
To your second question I respond:
In most Buddhist traditions it is taught to live in the ‘now’ ‘now’ ‘now’ ‘now’. This practice of repeating ‘now’ is meant to focus one into the realization that only ‘now’ can be changed. The point being that at any time the seeker can correct their ways. I don’t believe I ever mentioned that a person is answerable for any of their actions. If a concept was behind it for us it would be cause and effect though in Buddhism it is called Karma. Which combined with reincarnation ends with even a Bhodhistattva possibly reincarnating for a moments lapse in intent.
To your third question I respond:
I attempt not to advice on religion. I believe it is a subjective choice and should remain as such. I have no qualms answering questions. I also attempt not to load what I’m saying to make it look good. I attempt to show both sides, though I’m sure I’m not so kind as I like to hope to views that are not my own. I believe society perverts everything it touches to some extent. The real Buddhism as far as I’m concerned exists outside of it’s social context. I don’t prescribe hope, hope is not necessary to life. I am a skeptic, and have no problems denying everything, just about up to a point of solipsism. (see my factoidz on epistemology)
To your four question I respond:
You’ve found the aspect of Buddhism most like every other world religion. It’s sense of mystery; that one must dedicate their life to fulfill the prescription of the religion. If it has ever been said I doubt it, if it can be outlined yet never touched I would say that Buddhism prescribes that enlightenment is reached through selflessness. One does not become enlightened by wanting it, or wanting good for themselves… One becomes enlightened by compassion for the world. I am certain that we are uncertain about metaphysical claims. I don’t propose to teach anyone anything. When I talk to people or write my goal is simple. Toss out some bits of information, allow them to mull it over, hope for a response, and then hope to continue the process.
To your five question I respond:
The right intent is one of the eight fold path. The idea being that when intending to ‘x’ for non-selfish reasons. One is intending in such a way that does not increase suffering. I hope I did describe contraries, eastern philosophies are fond of them, and rich with them.
To your six question I respond:
It is a deep seeded and very ‘religious’ aspect of Buddhism that assures us that enlightenment cannot be described. It is the entire reason Zen Buddhism exists. The Koan is meant to break our thinking down, such that we can understand reality.
I think you are right in that you have a better idea of what Buddhism is to an outsider. I don’t think your concept of Buddhism is charitable to the philosophy or any of it’s religion.
