Why buddhism?

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Silver

What would you say, are the most important points you're trying to make, Ground? (in this thread?)

Read #1 and #4. That should be feasible, shouldn't it?

[Silver]

Originally Posted by Ground

Read #1 and #4. That should be feasible, shouldn't it?

Well ~ I mean in your own words. You know, how people talk?

I don't need a laundry list to try and understand what is most important to you.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

jonesboy, why don't you provide syllogisms that support your assertions?

I have before but do you think it would do any good.. really?

One can look like I mentioned at Anatta. One can look at the Two Truth Doctrine.

We are trapped in ego and Buddhism teaches you the path to realizing there is no such thing.

How about this:

He who does not understand the egolessness of existence, and who still attached to ego-illusion, such a one cannot comprehend and understand the four Noble Truths of the Buddha in the true light.

These four truths are:
1.the truth of the impermanency, unsatisfactoriness and impersonality of existence;
2.the truth that repeated rebirth and misery are rooted in self-illusion and craving for existence;
3.the truth that through the extinction of all self-illusion vanity, and craving, deliverance from all rebirth will be attained;
4.the truth that the eightfold path, based on right understanding, is the path leading to this goal.

He who has not penetrated the ego-illusion and is still attached to self-vanity will believe that it is he himself that suffers, will believe that is he himself that performs the good and evil deeds leading to his rebirth, that it is he himself that will enter Nirvana, that is he himself that will bring the eightfold path to perfection.

Whoso, however, has fully penetrated the egolessness of existence, knows that, in the highest sense, there is no individual that suffers, that commits the kammic deeds, that enters Nirvana, and that brings the Eightfold Path to perfection.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a.../wheel202.html

I think that say's it all.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I have before but do you think it would do any good.. really?

One can look like I mentioned at Anatta. One can look at the Two Truth Doctrine.

We are trapped in ego and Buddhism teaches you the path to realizing there is no such thing.

How about this:



I think that say's it all.

yeah, that's not buddhism. Why? Because 'ego' isn't an expression in authentic buddhist texts.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

yeah, that's not buddhism. Why? Because 'ego' isn't an expression in authentic buddhist texts.

It was written by a Bhikkhu, a fully ordained Buddhist monk on the Access to Insight website which is where teachings from the sutras and masters of Theravada are kept online.

It is pure Buddhism..

Whom to believe a Bhikkhu or you on Buddhism....

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

It was written by a Bhikkhu, a fully ordained Buddhist monk on the Access to Insight website which is where teachings from the sutras and masters of Theravada are kept online.

It is pure Buddhism..

Sorry but do you really want to qualify as a stupid person?

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Whom to believe a Bhikkhu or you on Buddhism....

If you want to make others believe that 'ego' is an authentic buddhist teaching then please provide syllogistic evidence.
C'mon! Provide!

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

Sorry but do you really want to qualify as a stupid person?


If you want to make others believe that 'ego' is an authentic buddhist teaching then please provide syllogistic evidence.
C'mon! Provide!

syllogistic:


an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs).

•deductive reasoning as distinct from induction:

You are trapped in Ego. Buddhism is about moving beyond ego.

As proof that Buddhism is about moving beyond ego please reference my previous post.

Also, if Buddhism didn't teach about ego it wouldn't teach about there not being an ego. Why teach something if it is not believed to exist?

That is why the Bhikkhu said:

He who has not penetrated the ego-illusion and is still attached to self-vanity will believe that it is he himself that suffers, will believe that is he himself that performs the good and evil deeds leading to his rebirth, that it is he himself that will enter Nirvana, that is he himself that will bring the eightfold path to perfection.

Whoso, however, has fully penetrated the egolessness of existence, knows that, in the highest sense, there is no individual that suffers, that commits the kammic deeds, that enters Nirvana, and that brings the Eightfold Path to perfection.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a.../wheel202.html

The Buddha said there is no such thing Ultimately as an ego, as a self.. Doesn't mean he didn't talk about ego though does it?

Here are two sutras for you two look at that talk about ego.

Extracts from the Samyutta-Nikaya
Dealing with Egolessness

Compiled and translated by Nyanatiloka Mahathera

And:

The Advantages of Realizing the Doctrine of Anattaa
(Anattaanisa"msa)

by The Venerable Ledi Sayadaw, Agga Maha Pandita, D.Litt

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a.../wheel202.html

Let me know what you think with all of the references to ego in the two Authentic Buddhist writings.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

syllogistic:
Let me know what you think with all of the references to ego in the two Authentic Buddhist writings.

it is a private believer's bull**** and an insult for all that want to validly know what can be validly known.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

Sorry but do you really want to qualify as a stupid person?


If you want to make others believe that 'ego' is an authentic buddhist teaching then please provide syllogistic evidence.
C'mon! Provide!

I know what you mean now, those knowledge from scriptures that you understand and know will automatically become in your belief is authentic other than that is not authentic in Buddhism.

Let say, I kill a snake be the roadside then to me is a true event but to you is you can't find in scriptures texts. So it's not authentic. But you said, direct perception. What I said in my post is direct perception that's fit to the law of Buddhism teaching. But because you don't see I kill the snake then it's true but to you is not true.

In this world event how many can you see by your own eyes? And most of them are written in books then you'll not agree that it's true for you don't see or experience them by yourself. So that's no wise .....

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong

I know what you mean now, .

No you don't.