# Buddhism: get it right people! (pathetic rant) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 23, 2003, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087 "2003-10-23T12:16:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/21 "2003-10-24T02:49:10Z")
Coffeecat: How do you know? Maybe all gods do exist. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/22 "2003-10-24T03:44:57Z")
“All religions are just different interpretations of the same thing…” Similarly, all philosophies are just different approaches to the same thing. Ditto for political parties and ideologies. Sorry, but I don’t buy into this happy talk. It seems to me, for example, that Buddhism and Christianity differ in some rather fundamental ways. For example, much of Christianity appears to frame humanity’s essential problem as one of sin. (The solution, of course, is putting one’s faith in the Son.) The Buddha, OTOH, focussed on human suffering - to him, that was the central problem. From there, he posited what some of the psychological underpinnings of suffering might be, and then attempted to develop the appropriate treatment. Different problems, different approaches. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/23 "2003-10-24T11:23:52Z")
They are easily reconciled if sin is defined as the obstruction of goodness. Suffering is thus caused by the desire to sin. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/24 "2003-10-24T12:08:24Z")
With “goodness” once again serving as an undefined variable. Give it a rest, **Lib**. Or at least stay out of religious discussions. ---
**Author:** ![Drastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Drastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drastic)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/25 "2003-10-24T12:18:17Z")
This thread makes me envision Siddhartha and Jesus sitting in a bar over a couple drinks, both peering in deep bemusement at a television screen upon which the thread is playing out. But then again, lots of threads do that for me. I’m pretty sure that bemuses 'em, too. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/26 "2003-10-24T12:25:06Z")
Ah, but we know that the Enlightened One wouldn’t care one way or another. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/27 "2003-10-24T13:32:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Coffeecat: How do you know? Maybe all gods do exist. Not possible. Some "Gods (I know there’s only one!) are mutually eclusive principles, and ergo could not exist simultaneously, if they existed, which only one does, therefore there is no conflict. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/28 "2003-10-24T13:38:57Z")
Why can’t gods contradict each other? They can contradict themselves. Verily, they are higher powers that we wot not the true meanings of. Or delusions. And how do you know only one god exists? Perhaps three do, and two of them are lying. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/29 "2003-10-24T14:03:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*With “goodness” once again serving as an undefined variable. > > Give it a rest, **Lib**. Or at least stay out of religious discussions. \*\* Actually, I’ll discuss whatever I please within the rules of the board. As you’ve been told before, it is illogical to define all the terms in an axiomatic system. That’s why, for example, Peanno left “successor” undefined for his Induction Axiom, the very foundation of every mathematical operation. That you didn’t know this was surprising, since it is common knowledge and is universal among the philosophical disciplines. But now you do know it, so you aren’t ignorant any more — you are merely stupid, contrary, and incorrigible. [From Minnesotta State University](http://www.mnstate.edu/peil/M385/Handouts/AxiomaticSystems.doc) > [@](#): > > An axiomatic system consists of some undefined terms (primitive terms) and a list of statements, called axioms or postulates, concerning the undefined terms. […snip…] Certain terms are left undefined to prevent circular definitions, and the axioms are stated to give properties to the undefined terms [From Prentice Hall’s _Geometry_](http://www.e-zgeometry.com/classph/sec4/4.3/4.3.htm) > [@](#): > > In order to use deductive reasoning to construct a valid proof, we must rely on statements that are accepted to be true. In geometry, those statements are DEFINITIONS, PROPERTIES, RULES and POSTULATES. We also depend on the list of UNDEFINED TERMS. (Caps theirs) [From the University of Maine](http://germain.umemat.maine.edu/faculty/wohlgemuth/OutIntro.html) > [@](#): > > On the intuitive level, definitions serve to lead our imagination. In a formal proof, however, we are not allowed to use attributes of our imaginative ideas that don’t follow logically solely from definitions and axioms relating undefined terms. Did you know that [True and False are undefined](http://www.math.umn.edu/~jodeit/course/ACaRA01.pdf) when used in axiomatic systems? Did you know that [Point, Line, and Plane are undefined terms](http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=26&q=http://www.math.ohiou.edu/~connor/geometry/chap2/axiomlct.htm&e=747) in Euclidean Geometry? Did you know that the [underlying object of KIF is undefined](http://infomaster.stanford.edu/documentation/sif/logic.html)? In fact, undefined terms are the foundation for the [Deductive Method](http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Deductive.html) itself: > [@](#): > > You have to start somewhere, and you start with undefined terms. You pick undefined terms to be very common and self-evident, then you just have to assume that everyone will be “on the same page”. For Euclid, undefined terms were things like point, line, etc. You can discuss what you mean by an undefined term, but you can’t define everything. I have discussed what I mean by “goodness” with you over and over, and consistently I have told you that it is the aesthetic most valued by God. I believe that that is an acceptable description of goodness that any reasonably intelligent person can understand. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/30 "2003-10-24T14:05:30Z")
Oh, that clears everything up. So, how do we determine what is valued by God again? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/31 "2003-10-24T15:41:43Z")
Vorlon > [@](#): > > Oh, that clears everything up. I detect a note of sarcasm indicating that, in fact, the references to the universities, textbooks, and physicists did not clear anything up for you. That leaves you in one of these two states: [1] You are not capable of understanding what is common knowledge [2] You do understand it, but are pretending not to Personally, I think it is number [2]. > [@](#): > > So, how do we determine what is valued by God again? What He values is goodness. That’s an axiom. Now, you can pretend you don’t know what axioms are. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/32 "2003-10-24T16:35:50Z")
What a maroon. I wonder if he actually believes the garbage he posts, or just enjoys taking up server space. In regards to the OP: there most certainly are multiple versions of Buddhism, but there are obviously some similarities. No matter what sect you discuss, though, Enlightenment is always the same; in that sense, all Buddhists _are_ monolithic and Borg-like. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/33 "2003-10-24T16:36:23Z")
Excuse me, I wanted an argument, not abuse! ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/34 "2003-10-24T16:39:11Z")
Oh, and before I forget: **Lib** ’s statement is a definition, not an axiom. Why am I not surprised he can’t tell the difference? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/35 "2003-10-24T16:43:15Z")
There’s also the point that if some principles are actually _true_ (or at least related to certain assumptions), as opposed to merely being enshrined in religious traditions, people will keep stumbling onto them. Thus, people who hold beliefs that are in some way similar to the principles of Buddhism and who reached them through logic and analysis will tend to be somewhat similar. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/36 "2003-10-24T17:33:05Z")
Uh oh. Vorlon, you’re bounding off the walls again. Tell ya what. I invite you to [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=219312) in General Questions, where you can enlighten us about deductive systems that have no undefined terms. But you’d better leave your bullshit behind — it isn’t tolerated there. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/37 "2003-10-24T18:13:56Z")
> [@](#): > > No matter what sect you discuss, though, Enlightenment is always the same; in that sense, all Buddhists are monolithic and Borg-like. Not at all. There are VERY wide varieties of what s the Enlightened state is being like. And not all buddhists believe in Enlightenment. Nirvana does not actually mean that. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/38 "2003-10-24T18:26:04Z")
Yes. Nirvana is the state of utter non-attachment and non-being. Enlightenment is quite different. What’s your point? There are lots of different kinds of scientists, and many scientists believe quite different things. Nevertheless, those who practice science have some fundamental similarities – in my mind, they’re a lot more similar and “Borg-like” than Buddhists. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/39 "2003-10-25T00:58:47Z")
I’ve never claimed to know anything about Buddhism, so maybe you can help me out here. There must be a basic set of beliefs, attitudes, principles, or something that makes a Buddhist a Buddhist or why bother giving it a name. So what _does_ make a Buddhist a Buddhist? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087/40 "2003-10-25T03:03:26Z")
**Lib** sez, “They are easily reconciled if sin is defined as the obstruction of goodness. Suffering is thus caused by the desire to sin.” Um. 1) I didn’t say they couldn’t be reconciled; I said they weren’t identical (or at least I tried to say that). 1. But I find your attempt at reconciliation problematic. (Oh, well). A Christian _might_ say that all suffering is caused by the desire to sin. Maybe. But such a view would conflict with Buddhist doctrine. The Buddha set out a detailed taxonomy of suffering. Since he was focusing on what is at bottom a subjective experience it is perhaps not surprising that he would end up emphasizing internal causes of suffering rather than external ones. At any rate, the Buddha ended up concluding that all forms of suffering have in common at least some element of (psychological) attachment. Eliminate attachment, and suffering is goes away. Of course, now I have to define “attachment”. Then I would have to go over the Buddha’s proposed methods of releasing oneself from such attachments. But as I am not an expert in these matters, I won’t go there. [sup]1[/sup] ## I only wish to say that a Buddhist approach differs from a Christian approach. (OBTW, I recognize there are some obvious objections that can be raised to the preceding simplistic treatment.) I hope it goes without saying though that the 2 religions share with everyone else a common set of moral conclusions. (Don’t murder, steal, lie, etc.) Perhaps this helps, **bnorton**. [sup]1[/sup][sub]DISCLAIMER: Those wishing to attain enlightenment are encouraged to ignore this post. AFAIK, IIRC, YMMV.[/sub] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/buddhism-get-it-right-people-pathetic-rant/209087.md?page=3)