Faith or Facts

[xris]

so where does faith and say buddhism have its relevance? no deity here but plenty of faith..What about personel faith in your own lifes experiences no deity here...Whats proof? for the faithful its all around them to the agnostic there is none...perspective is wonderful thing...

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by xris

so where does faith and say buddhism have its relevance? no deity here but plenty of faith..What about personel faith in your own lifes experiences no deity here...Whats proof? for the faithful its all around them to the agnostic there is none...perspective is wonderful thing...

I don't know that it needs to; are we mixing two concepts which, for the purposes of the question at hand - are like square holes and round blocks? I fear that may be the case.

I can only offer that I think it important to keep these two elements in their proper perspective. One needn't contain any portion of the other to have worth; two different tools for two different purposes.

Good luck - I hope someone offers up something that helps.

Thanks

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Icon

We are in the Philosophy of Religion section which means that we must look at the terms from that perspective.

Icon,

Your point is well taken; and you're quite right that these are concepts which need to be taken in the framework of the questions-at-hand. My gentle caution is basically this: Because we use terms whose meaning lie at the basis of any philosophical point-of-view, such terms must necessarily exist - as much as is possible - in the minds of the parties involved as having a common meaning; at least to that extent to which this is possible. In this thread's case, I believe they're divergent enough to warrant the caution that any solution doesn't necessarily have to be an either/or proposition.

And yes; semantic quibbling isn't a very savory part of the debate process, but whatever label we apply to the process, the establishment of common meaning and context of the terms involved, is both necessary and prudent (or that is how I see it).

Again, good clarifications and Thanks

[Icon]

I completely agree that a common meaning should be found and agreed upon but that does not necessarily require a semantics conversation. I am a professional business coach and my specialty is business communication. One of the hardest parts of my lessons is getting my customer to understand that it is the responsibility of the communicator to state things in a way which is understandable.

Those who are deep strive for clarity. Those who wish to appear deep to the crowd strive for obscurity. The crowd is too timid to cross water which it cannot see the bottom. ~Nietzsche

If you feel that there might be an issue with the semantics of a word or words then it is your responsibility as a communicator to highlight the meaning as you see it. This will continue the conversation and clearly state your views without diverting attention to perspective meaning.

I am not saying that I do this all the time but I live in a town where this sort of discussion occurs on the regular and I often find myself getting far off topic to discuss meaning or definition and this has proven to be the most viable and rational way to avoid the issue.

Originally Posted by xris

so where does faith and say buddhism have its relevance? no deity here but plenty of faith..What about personel faith in your own lifes experiences no deity here...Whats proof? for the faithful its all around them to the agnostic there is none...perspective is wonderful thing...

Buddhism has MANY dieties my friend. Jade emperor, heavenly bodies, buddisatvas (sp?). Now, if you are speaking on the philosophy of buddhism then you are correct. No dieties, but that would not fit in this section either. I am VERY familiar with this as I was a buddhist for many years and had to weed through philosophical vs. religious buddhism. Faith in experience is based on evidence or the diety of science. Because you have witnessed something time and again, you have faith that it will happen in a certain way. In this way, it is a fact which has yet to be written.

[Whoever]

Originally Posted by xris

so where does faith and say buddhism have its relevance? no deity here but plenty of faith..What about personel faith in your own lifes experiences no deity here...Whats proof? for the faithful its all around them to the agnostic there is none...perspective is wonderful thing...

"According to the Dharma there are three different kinds of faith. The first can be described as a longing or a wish that what you hope and believe to be true actually is true. The second is described as a lucid faith in which you conclude that what you believe to be true actually is true. The third kind of faith is unshakable faith, which is total conviction." (Lama Suryadas, Awakening the Budha Within)

After this faith can only be abandoned for knowledge.

Icon - I'm afraid I cannot agree that philosophy and religion are somehow at odds within Buddhism. I would rather say that Buddhism is not a philosophy or a religion in the most common meaning of these words.

By the way, you might like a sign I once saw on a manager's desk, which read, 'The trouble with communication is thinking it happened.' I think this says it all.

Whoever

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by Icon

Buddhism has MANY dieties my friend. Jade emperor, heavenly bodies, buddisatvas (sp?). Now, if you are speaking on the philosophy of buddhism then you are correct. No dieties, but that would not fit in this section either. I am VERY familiar with this as I was a buddhist for many years and had to weed through philosophical vs. religious buddhism. Faith in experience is based on evidence or the diety of science. Because you have witnessed something time and again, you have faith that it will happen in a certain way. In this way, it is a fact which has yet to be written.

Bodhisattvas are not deities. The Jade Emperor is from Chinese mythology, not from Indian or Tibetan Buddhism, though the concept has crept in to Buddhism in China due to that country’s remarkable ability to synthesize spiritual traditions.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Bodhisattvas are not deities. The Jade Emperor is from Chinese mythology, not from Indian or Tibetan Buddhism, though the concept has crept in to Buddhism in China due to that country’s remarkable ability to synthesize spiritual traditions.

Buddhism has many factions, just as christianity or any other religion. But again, these are all faith based.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by MITech

Facts or Faith

FACTS, n. My Perspective.
FAITH, n. Your's.
-Book of Fudd (26:66)

[Didymos Thomas]

Right, Buddhism is a diverse religion but I'm not familiar with any Buddhist sect that considers Bodhisattvas to be deities.

Buddhism does have many deities, but these gods are quite different from God in other traditions. Buddhist gods are caught up in samsara just like humans and all other sentient beings.

[Rose]

Buddhism, neither a religion or a philosophy. My thoughts are, like everything else we use in order to understand ourselves and the world we live in, it can either be a tool or a crutch, depending on how you choose to use it.