(October 7, 2026 at 2:03 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 7, 2026 at 1:36 pm)emjay Wrote: Well, that's the first mistake (my bold) lol... because there's nothing to boast about with that, whatever type of Christianity it is Same thing with Christian superiority complexes... completely meaningless to me. They may think they're superior, but that doesn't mean everyone else does, or anyone else for that matter, simple as that. Glad to get that off my chest. Anyway, sorry, rant-mode reactivated... I have to take this Buddhist approach in baby steps A lot of the Buddhists I meet actually speak very positively of Christianity, but I can't agree with them on that, and even the Buddha was well known for his openness towards all other religions, but again that's a bit of a big step for me.

That puts me in mind of Gandhi’s answer when he was asked how he felt about Christianity: ‘I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.’

Boru

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it too, but for Buddhism's sake, I should be trying to be more positive... look more to the positive (if I can find anything ). Ultimately, everybody suffers, no matter what their religion or lack of, and indeed that quest for beliefs on these subjects, is primarily about reducing that suffering whatever form it takes. And Buddhist 'Metta'... loving-kindness meditation ultimately comes down to that... to recognising that everybody, friend or foe, suffers in these ways... everybody has to answer these sorts of metaphysical questions, in attempts to deal with their own suffering. So however arseholey we can be to each other in these sorts of arguments, at the end of the day, everybody suffers, and that we all have in common.

Just as being too open-minded can be detrimental, so can being too positive. Balance, be just as realistic as you are kind.

^I’ll say this much for Buddhists - not ONCE have they rung my doorbell to ask if I’ve heard the good news about Gautama. 

Boru

(October 7, 2026 at 2:31 pm)Kitan Etos Wrote: Just as being too open-minded can be detrimental, so can being too positive. Balance, be just as realistic as you are kind.

Yeah, agreed. In theory, Buddhism is supposed to be like that; neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but rather realistic... because optimism and pessimism ultimately come from overthinking, but realistic-ness comes from mindfulness. I.e. the difference between thinking about the past or future, compared to the present. So tbh it does confuse me a little, how on the one hand the goal is often equanimity... to accept things as they are, neither clinging to them or pushing them away... but on the other hand there does also seem to be aims to create optimism etc. So, yeah, it is a bit confusing to me sometimes.

(October 7, 2026 at 2:33 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ^I’ll say this much for Buddhists - not ONCE have they rung my doorbell to ask if I’ve heard the good news about Gautama. 

Boru

Just give me your address and I'll do that J/K

@Belacqua

Quote:Our Americanized Zen was very different. 

Americans are a dab hand at perverting religions.

Boru

Not really something we did. Buddhism was repackaged for a western audience because the western audience is politically useful to Buddhism back east.

(October 8, 2026 at 7:32 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Not really something we did.  Buddhism was repackaged for a western audience because the western audience is politically useful to Buddhism back east.

In what way do you mean? At the end of the day, whether you call it 'repackaged" or it actually is, makes no real difference to me because the part that is repackaged, if repackaged it is, speaks for itself logically and in its secular form, or a secular streamlined view of it... however one looks at it... it doesn't require any kind of 'faith' in anything external. Do you disagree with and/or think it is logically unsound, the same logic of it that I find so appealing, life-changing, and well, stabilising/comforting?, ie that everything that arises in life/consciousness is subject to change and is therefore not guaranteed to be permanent and therefore should not be treated and/or relied on as if it is guaranteed to be permanent, because nothing is. Do you think that is logically unsound/unhelpful? Whether that logic is 'repackaged' or whatever, by others or even myself to whatever extent (i.e. my idea of 'conditioned' might be different to what Buddhism had in mind, but if it is, it's still the same underlying principle; causality), doesn't really matter because logic speaks for itself, if it is 'sound', so it doesn't matter where it comes from. In my case I just find it incredibly useful from a reductionistic point of view, in so many ways.