Posted: May 18, 2012 7:26 am
by daveWW
paarsurrey wrote:
ramseyoptom wrote:The paarsurrey problem with the Guatama Buddha and Buddhism is, I suspect, that he expects the sutras to say what things are rather than as they do which is what things are not. It is also obvious that he has not realised that the Buddha did not believe in a "Creator God", gods are a minor part in the Buddhist canon and because of their nature are unable to reach nirvana unlike man.

The more he posts, on any subject, the more obvious how little he understands.


I think I have clarified many a times that I am speaking about truthful Buddha and defending him; not the corrupted Buddhists or the Buddhism.


And how do you/we know what the Buddha said- other than through Buddhists?

This approach of distinguishing Buddha from the tradition is not practical or possible. The Buddha we know of (unless you mean a previous Buddha, DÄ«pankara, etc) is a product of early Buddhism: there is no other access to him...

Now- we can compare versions of Buddhism, and see some as more and some as less ethical, or in accordance with our views. We can see some as having philosophical insights we might value, an other strands as intellectually dangerous. That is fine. But trying to separate Buddha from Buddhism is neither an honest nor coherent approach...