nac

Dear lord, it's incredible how little you know about Buddhism and how many half-baked opinions you've come up with! In your mind, Buddhism and I both seem to bear the same satanic face. Talking to you can only be detrimental in that case. It's not wholly my fault. You refuse to understand anything, explanations or not.

That's what Hindus say, no foolies. Buddhists usually say that Buddhist cosmology is much closer to the real world than those of Abrahamic religions, (human-centric, everlasting souls, 6000 year old universe, etc) therefore it's ethical philosophy is also more relevant to beings who eyes have been opened by science. dragonfire45, it it worth arguing with you? You tell me. PS. What can falsify your hypothesis about me?

Black and white again. Most Hindus in my experience are not = Hinduism. In the field of mathematics, maybe, but certainly not science. The field of modern optics was created by a medieval Muslim scientist who also invented the pin-hole camera. Historically speaking, the tradition of empirical science is a medieval Muslim invention. Hindus rarely progressed beyond theoretical speculation before the arrival of the British. No I don't, that's how you imagined me speaking of them. There's a difference, see? I have great respect for Hindu mahapurushas like Aryabhatta and the rest of the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics. Appreciation for both Hindu and Muslim sages and sorrow for the lay masses of either isn't self-contradictory. Aren't you stretching it a bit now? The whole point was that all laypersons come up with unscientific theories like V's and that we shouldn't let anyone get away with delusional thinking. Well, it is true that lay Hindu theories tend to be more fantastical and lay Muslim theories more violent, but that's completely beside the point. When you forget what the point was, please go back and reread the earlier posts. Me? You have got to be kidding me. Nice one! I especially like the way you stereotype me into a "typical Hindu hating Indian Muslim" and accuse me of hypocrisy in the same post.

Note that it's not my intention to convert anyone to Buddhism. I'm here to end delusion, both yours and mine.

With any luck, they will soften someone.

Ask dwai if you don't believe me. Dwai, what do you think of the pet theories lay Hindus come up with in modern India? Nope, I respect medieval Islamic culture for it's contribution to human knowledge, but we've become fundamentalist savages these days. These are our dark ages, after a golden age during the dark ages of Europe. Did you know the scientific method (experimentation; observation; inference) was discovered by Arab and Persian alchemists? Plus, I don't believe the irrational doctrines of Islam either. I'm a philanthropist first, and Buddhist second. What's ludicrous is you projecting your prejudices onto my words every step of the way. Black and white again, see? Riddle me this: Are you or are you not, most lay Indian Hindus?

See? I'm afraid I know you're mistaken, but I cannot convince you. A pity, really. Unskillful actions cause minds to narrow and harden, but there's nothing I can do about V and company either. May the wisdom mind of the three kayas protect us. Please go on bashing all quacks, by all means. You'll be doing them (and me) a favor.

Hey, don't blame me! Drew tends to rub off on you.

Speaking of lay Buddhists, have you any idea what most lay Hindus are like? If you don't, don't bother trying to become better acquainted with their pet theories. Trust me, you'll live to regret it.

Really? And you knew they knew that, huh?

V isn't a Buddhist master, he's a lay Buddhist. He has been a Buddhist for about as long as I have. Where did I say that non-Buddhists aren't entitled to their opinions? Evidence please. If you're complaining because I didn't make fun of V's paper, that's because I'm out of energy ATM. Maybe later? What does that mean? Are Hindu claims more outrageous than Buddhist claims? What, in average? In general? Or are you asking which claim is more outrageous, this thread or V's paper? I'm a science fan, so I have to go with the paper, but both are equally preposterous and neither are based on their respective doctrinal tradition. V may seem like most Buddhists of the world all at once to the regulars of this forum, but I assure you he's not. What assumption? I was talking about most Indians in my experience and never claimed otherwise. I have never seen a Hindu speak out against reasoning like that, not even dwai. As for Buddhists, I hereby speak out against V's embarrassment of a paper. Seriously though, you know about movements like Western Buddhism & co, right? I've never seen anything like that for Hinduism, except the Advaitins in this forum: http://www.freeratio.org/forumdisplay.php?f=22 You sir, exhibit a very black and white mind. I have no intention of insulting you. Take this as an unbiased observation.

Um... philosophical relativism and the theory of relativity are two different things. Hari is entitled to his opinion, but he doesn't speak for all Buddhists. Holy shit, the University of Hong Kong?

Manusher mone ajkal kono spiritual ambition nei, janen to? Beshirbhag lok gotokaler jhogra niyei pore thakte bhalo bashe. vicious circle + self-complacency = eternal cycle Hopefully this will be broken before long. I hold no grievances against the ignorant. That includes all of us.

There's a middle ground between exact sameness and absolute difference, you know. Detailed comparison of properties... that's the domain of philosophers. Source of these statistics? Good lord! Why does my background matter so much? qulwallahu ahad allahus'samad lamyalid walamyulad walamya'qullahu kufu'anahad But then anyone can copy and paste, right? Pseudo-intellectualism isn't "over intellectualization", whatever that is. Who are these Buddhists? I haven't met a single serious teacher who claims the Buddha knew quantum mechanics. I have seen a few inappropriate and unscientific analogies with certain aspects of quantum mechanics, but that's about it. Surprisingly, a handful of apt analogies also exist. After all, both the dharma and theoretical physics confound the conventional mind. In the Pali Suttas, the Shakyamuni declared that he wasn't omniscient. Mahayana Buddhas are "omniscient", but they're more like metaphysical principles as opposed to historical personages, right?

There's no way you can get chicks with that kind of attitude.

Well in that case, there was no point in contradicting me. I was expressing my honest opinion of your failings. That opinion stands until corrected.

Bengal Institute of Technology. Apni chinben na, Salt Lake-er dike Techno college. Khiddirpur, biye para. Joghonno elaka. Prottek din kan chhire daei. Age jokhon Jadavpur-e thaktam, tokhon akta besh nishtobhdo poribesh chhilo. Ram mandir bhangar somoye jokhon hangama hoecchilo, tokhon paliye ashte hoechhe. lol Ki ar bolbo bolun? Nazrul-er poribar ki na, "Khodar ashon arosh chhediya..."

That quote isn't even yours.

He explicitly denied the existence of an abiding self. So you know that I understand the concept. I can't do that now, but I'll try to get hold of it. How so? I'm in Kolkata right now. Ask a mod if you don't believe me. Nope.

Because you skipped over it and commented on a bunch of random offtopic issues, so I thought you were attempting to dispute the point for whatever reason. Yep, Muslim family. Kazi Nazrul Islam's, believe it or not. Dwai will know who that is. I have nothing personal against Hinduism.

d: I haven't had awesome experiences of India or anything, I'm just an average engineering student in Kolkata who's "narrating his experience as simply and as easily as he can". Convince me.

Chill dude, it's just a joke.

I suggested Indian traditions developed in isolation from each other? Me? All I said was that Shramana is at least as old as Hinduism, if not older. Buddhism considers itself part of that tradition. Buddhism refuses to reify an existent world-phenomenon of any kind, so it's not a realist school. Ignoring subtleties, delusion is an ontological property of sense-perception IIRC, (generally speaking, if anything can be said to have an ontological property in Buddhism) and the cause of dukkha. What does this have to do with realism? PS. I am an Indian. Why would Americans get mad at me for talking about Hinduism? PPS. What does this have to do with anything? What reductionist? What conjecture?

Mom?

What I'm getting at is, see how shallow Indians spend their time to appear learned and sophisticated? Adi Shankara did essentially the same thing by projecting his favorite metaphysical ideas onto the Vedas IMHO, thus inadvertently co-opting them as symbols of authority for a brand new school of philosophy.