Kunga Lhadzom wrote:To the rescue : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya
Huseng wrote:Kunga Lhadzom wrote:To the rescue : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya
When Maitreya appears nobody will have heard of the Buddhadharma. It will have been entirely forgotten.
pueraeternus wrote:And the current human race would be almost entirely forgotten, like how fragmentary our knowledge is about the Neanderthals.
Excellent! Now I can finally post this image.plwk wrote:
jeeprs wrote:Also, I think Bachelor and secular Buddhism needs to be part of the dialogue around Buddhism, even if you don't agree with his views. He posts the negative reviews of his books on his site, as well as the positive ones (or he used to, when I last looked.) If you meet Stephen Bachelor, he is very open, he is not particularly pushy about his position. I agree with the criticisms of him and don't accept his overall interpretation, but he represents a viewpoint that many secular westerners respond to.
jeeprs wrote:Also debating clever people who you don't agree with, if you can do it without becoming overly attached, is a very good way to help you clarify your own views.
Representation of Cārvāka in Āstika, Buddhist and Jain Literature
The Yogācāra Buddhists, Jains, Advaita Vedantins and Nyāya philosophers considered the Cārvākas as one of their opponents and tried to refute their views. These refutations are sources of Cārvāka philosophy since, they continued to be made even after all the authentic Cārvāka/Lokāyata texts had been lost. However, the representation of the Cārvāka thought in these works is not always firmly grounded in first hand knowledge of Cārvāka texts and should be viewed critically.
Though Cārvākas accepted direct perception as the surest method to prove the truth of anything, they might also have accepted a limited usage of inference. The perception that Cārvākas had a rigid stance against the application of inference might have been a result of caricaturing of their arguments by their opponents. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya quotes S. N. Dasgupta:
"Purandara (a Lokāyata philosopher) [...] admits the usefulness of inference in determining the nature of all worldly things where perceptual experience is available; but inference cannot be employed for establishing any dogma regarding the transcendental world, or life after death or the law of karma which cannot be available to ordinary perceptual experience."
Likewise, the charge of hedonism against Cārvāka might have been exaggerated. Countering the argument that the Cārvākas opposed all that was good in the Vedic tradition, Dale Riepe says, "It may be said from the available material that Cārvākas hold truth, integrity, consistency, and freedom of thought in the highest esteem."
dharmagoat wrote:It seems that the Cārvāka/Lokāyata philosphers were ahead of their time.
dharmagoat wrote:I see no fault in their view, nor can I understand how this is at odds with the essence of what the Buddha taught.
Jnana wrote:The materialist rejection of karma entails rejecting the four noble truths and dependent origination, and is therefore incompatible with the Buddha's dharma.
Yet Stephen Bachelor upholds both The Four Noble Truths and Dependent Origination. Could it be that he is not a materialist?
dharmagoat wrote:Yet Stephen Bachelor upholds both The Four Noble Truths and Dependent Origination. Could it be that he is not a materialist?
JKhedrup wrote:How could you uphold the 4 Noble Truths and completely ignore karma, for example?
Karma is very much connected with True Origins.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], sweep and 12 guests