Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!unlnews.unl.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!propagator-sterling!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamfinder.gnilink.net!nwrddc04.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Namdrol" Newsgroups: alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,talk.religion.buddhism,alt.zen References: <89Av8.3087$ue4.91975@weber.videotron.net> <3CC7EE9B.95DA64BC@yahoo.com> <3ccc66f1_1@news.vic.com> <3ccc9e3e_1@news.vic.com> Subject: Re: Are there any good emotions ? Lines: 60 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:53:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.154.113.160 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrddc04.gnilink.net 1020045218 141.154.113.160 (Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:53:38 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:53:38 EDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan:141072 talk.religion.buddhism:216827 alt.zen:299215 " Vizion Communication" wrote in message news:3ccc9e3e_1@news.vic.com... > > "Namdrol" wrote in message > news:kh_y8.1283$ap4.1006@nwrddc03.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > Is not the test of a compelling Buddhist argument determining whether it > is > > > convincing to non-Buddhists? If the argument is only capable of > convincing > > > Buddhists then how valuable is it? > > > > Buddhist arguments are obviously not entirely compelling to all > non-Buddhists, > > if they were, non-Buddhists would all have become Buddhists long ago. > > The question is not whether people are compelled by the argument but whether > the argument holds the capability of convincing. If it does not hold the > capability of convincing non-Buddhists then why should the argument convince > Buddhists? Generally, but not always, Buddhists share common assumptions. Arguments among Buddhists generally proceed from these common assumptions. > > Buddhists have entirely enough differences amongst themselves to keep them > busy > > for eons. > > Thank you - I think you make a very good point. The implication of my > question is why does this happen? Why do Buddhists {and from what I can see > most other religions} finish up with a larger and larger number of schisms > who seem incapable of talking to one another? Buddha understood that this would occur, and provided for it. He basically stated that where sections of Buddhists came to disagree with one another, they could seperate and constitute new bodies. The idea that there is some overwhelming orthodoxy in Buddhism is absurd. The basic debates in Buddhism have been two fold. In the so called hinayaana schools, the main debate has been whether there is a person or not. In Mahaayaana the main debate has been whether means are necessary or not [this is mainly a debate between Indian and Chinese Buddhists, this was never an issue in India]. A second Mahaayaana debate, sometimes recapitulated in discussions between Tibetan Buddhists and some adherents of certain types of Zen revolves around the argument whether a consciousness completely purified of all defilements can truly be considered existent or not; Madhyamakas argue that this is not the case; Yogaacaarins argue that it is the case [that a consciousness completely purified of all defilements can truly be considered existent].