Why buddhism?

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong

(Below is what I quote from Wikipedia).

%%%%%%%%%%%%
It is said that there are countless beings who have attained buddhahood.[16]

How is this validly known? this is just a nonsensical assertion.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong

Buddhas spontaneously, naturally and continuously perform activities to benefit all sentient beings.[17] However it is believed that one's karma could limit the ability of the Buddhas to help them. Thus, although Buddhas possess no limitation from their side on their ability to help others, sentient beings continue to experience suffering as a result of the limitations of their own former negative actions.[18]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The above mentioned can prove that karma is not able to be removed even he can become a Buddha but he still suffering.......

A proof has subject, predicate and sign and all are directly perceptible. you are merely making belief statements.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

How is this validly known? this is just a nonsensical assertion.




A proof has subject, predicate and sign and all are directly perceptible. you are merely making belief statements.

That's not written by me but by others, they're from Wikipedia. You can also find out there. But it's identical to what I said. So I'mnot the first one to saythis way , then it's obvious that you're not getting it where your belief still stuck at unreasonable stuff of no truth believe.

[BlueSky]

It is a belief statement that certain texts are authentic. Isn't that obvious. It's like saying the Bible is the word of God. One believes that to be true.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

It is a belief statement that certain texts are authentic. Isn't that obvious. It's like saying the Bible is the word of God. One believes that to be true.

That's really the peak of irrationality!

The bible is an authentic christian text as the suttas are authentic buddhist texts.

In saying this it is neither asserted that the bible is the word of God nor that the figure Gautama ever existed and if he existed it is not asserted that he said exactly what is ascribed to him in the suttas.
Why? Because the objects of authenticity are the texts of the corresponding tradition, not more and not less. What are texts? Texts are concatenations of linguistic signs.

[BlueSky]

Before I reply Ground, what is it that you are saying is authentic and what does the word authentic mean in the context that you are using it.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Before I reply Ground, what is it that you are saying is authentic and what does the word authentic mean in the context that you are using it.

'Authentic texts' in the context of schools or traditions of thought are the texts the school or tradition considers to be authoritative.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

'Authentic texts' in the context of schools or traditions of thought are the texts the school or tradition considers to be authoritative.

Then What I said is authentic because I've explained to you where Itake the information from. If my information is from directly from the world-class ( only one ) creator then it's authentic. Who has another or better authority than creator?

He let me see my only body astral light that's the life or karma recorder in the real meaning that in this world only I've seen it. And that's directly perceived by me. That's the right cognition another word it's meeting to what your belief as truth.

But your belief is not following you as to see what I mean in the first place. Then I doubt that you really know you're saying? Or you only stuck by the concept of Tibetan Buddhism scriptures only, but not as you said ---- from authority.

You never see creator but I've seen him , then all that I said is true . No matter how agnostic or magical they're then I know and it's not to be override by others. That's why they're authentic.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong

Then What I said is authentic because I've explained to you where Itake the information from. If my information is from directly from the world-class ( only one ) creator then it's authentic. Who has another or better authority than creator?

What you say is authentic for your private belief but not for buddhism.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Ground

'Authentic texts' in the context of schools or traditions of thought are the texts the school or tradition considers to be authoritative.

I see that you used the word "considers" but really the word "believes" is more true to the meaning.
Am I right? If not then why.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

What you say is authentic for your private belief but not for buddhism.

What I said is what I've done, that's not my belief but it's my work. You don't tell me what I work isn't true. I do some research on the making of sutra:


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The Mahayana sutras are traditionally considered by Mahayanists to be the word of the Buddha, but transmitted either in secret, via lineages of supernatural beings (such as the nagas), or revealed directly from other Buddhas or bodhisattvas. Some 600 Mahayana Sutras have survived in Sanskrit, or in Chinese and/or Tibetan translation.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

So you can see , are sutras all words from Buddha? Some are "via lineages of supernatural beings(such as Nagas) or ..............