How many here want freedom FROM religion?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you're the one smoking it.

" Mara as [b]metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence. "

no devil person in buddhism (not that it's relevant at all to my argument).

my original argument remains uncontested:

satan didn't become a literal person until the new testament rolled around.[/b]

Early Buddhism acknowledged both a literal and "psychological" interpretation of Mara.
Mara is described both as an entity having a literal existence, just as the various deities
of the Vedic pantheon are shown existing around the Buddha

what is it about this statement that you fail to comprehend?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Thankyou. Void spirit should put it in a pipe and smoke it.

Yes Robbie but if you use the word "devil" then it has too many christian conotations and simply is not interchangeable with "Mara" as you are claiming.
How many times have you mentioned the word "Mara" on this forum? Do you really think it is as black and white as they make the christian "devil" out to be?
Thats not the way I read it

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes Robbie but if you use the word "devil" then it has too many christian conotations and simply is not interchangeable with "Mara" as you are claiming.
How many times have you mentioned the word "Mara" on this forum? Do you really think it is as black and white as they make the christian "devil" out to be?
Thats not the way I read it

again, what is it about this statement, provided by sonhouse, that you are failing to
understand?

Early Buddhism acknowledged both a literal and "psychological" interpretation of Mara.
Mara is described both as an entity having a literal existence, just as the various deities
of the Vedic pantheon are shown existing around the Buddha

I did not fabricate the statement, in fact, there is no mention of Christianity or any
connotations within the statement. Why must my words be evaluated in accordance
with your perceptions of what may or may not be the case? Perhaps it would be better
for those professing Buddhism to accept the fact, rather than deny it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You seem to overlook the fact that the New Testament resulted from the life and revelation of Christ, the Son of God.

you seem to overlook the fact that you have absolutely no clue what you're replying to.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Early Buddhism acknowledged both a literal and "psychological" interpretation of Mara.
Mara is described both as an entity having a literal existence, just as the various deities
of the Vedic pantheon are shown existing around the Buddha

what is it about this statement that you fail to comprehend?

the failure of comprehension is on your side altogether. weather or not mara is a literal or metaphorical entity is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of satan being a literal or metaphorical entity; and my argument still remains uncontested.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again, what is it about this statement, provided by sonhouse, that you are failing to
understand?

Early Buddhism acknowledged [b]both a literal and "psychological" interpretation of Mara.
Mara is described both as an entity having a literal existence, just as the various deities
of the Vedic pantheon are shown existing around the Buddha ...[text shortened]... ps it would be better
for those professing Buddhism to accept the fact, rather than deny it.[/b]

Firstly those who "profess Buddhism" dont all agree on everything. There is an official split between the Mahyana and the other one (forget the name), but within that there are way more conflicting views/ideas in Buddhism that you would realize. (Buddhism isn't a "one size fits all religion" like Muslims or Christianity. Chicken s**t conformity like that is reserved for people that can only "believe " in something if a whole bunch of other people believe it too. Sad really.)

I am failing to understand how you would equate "Mara" with "satan "or the "devil" , (the latter 2 concepts having heavy christian connotations).
I am failing to understand that you cant see that without Christianity there would be no devil or Satan. It is a christian concept and one need only to peruse any random threads (in context) to realize that only the christians seem to introduce the idea of a 'devil' in all seriousness.
Come on now Robbie , you're not going to just slip by my very basic questions are you? I have made an effort to answer yours.

BTW I've noticed that voidy and catty have made an effort to clarify the terms we are discussing where as you seem very content to say as little as possible in the hope that that unsuspecting readers will connect the buddhist idea with the christian one.
Like I said, it didn't convince me at all, and after having read sonhouse's post, that only reinforced my initial view on the matter.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again, what is it about this statement, provided by sonhouse, that you are failing to
understand?

Early Buddhism acknowledged [b]both a literal and "psychological" interpretation of Mara.
Mara is described both as an entity having a literal existence, just as the various deities
of the Vedic pantheon are shown existing around the Buddha ...[text shortened]... ps it would be better
for those professing Buddhism to accept the fact, rather than deny it.[/b]

Anyone who has a fairly basic grasp on Buddhism and Christianity would find some pretty revealing views from you and your quite open misunderstanding of the core ideas of Buddhism (and Hinduism for that matter). I dont think you can compare Buddhism with chriatianity (not the christianity that I see 'practiced' anyway).

Who cares if sonhouse provided the statement?


There is a mention of christianity because you being a christian - a JW no less - could not, in all seriousness say that you are not indoctrinated in a way that sends the message that conformity is the key to "success" - totally opposite to Buddhism.



Again, it says "early Buddhism" ,(remembering that the buddha was born over 500 years before JC). Do you support slavery and stoning people to death for small time crime ,etc.etc......etc. that was the norm at the time of early christianity ?

"Early Buddhism" .. give it a break man . You know squat about this subject, you have taken some words from sonhouse that you thought backed up your claim and ran with it.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Anyone who has a fairly basic grasp on Buddhism and Christianity would find some pretty revealing views from you and your quite open misunderstanding of the core ideas of Buddhism (and Hinduism for that matter). I dont think you can compare Buddhism with chriatianity (not the christianity that I see 'practiced' anyway).

Who cares if sonhouse provided ve taken some words from sonhouse that you thought backed up your claim and ran with it.

more blah blah de blah, unworthy of serious comment.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the failure of comprehension is on your side altogether. weather or not mara is a literal or metaphorical entity is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of satan being a literal or metaphorical entity; and my argument still remains uncontested.

wrong you stated Satan exists solely because of Christianity when in fact there is
evidence to the contrary, that is what is under discussion. Your ludicrous assertion not
only remains contested but is now thoroughly refuted.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Firstly those who "profess Buddhism" dont all agree on everything. There is an official split between the Mahyana and the other one (forget the name), but within that there are way more conflicting views/ideas in Buddhism that you would realize. (Buddhism isn't a "one size fits all religion" like Muslims or Christianity. Chicken s**t conformity like tha ing read sonhouse's post, that only reinforced my initial view on the matter.

Firstly those who "profess Buddhism" dont all agree on everything

well duh? the comment posted did say that its open to interpretation, yah think!
here it is again for the third time, with emphasis placed upon the salient words,

both a literal and "psychological"interpretation of Mara

I did not equate it, it was stated in the post, not by me, but by a third party source,
citing historical references, you may want to take the matter up with them. Whether
Christians introduce the idea or not, is not the issue, the fact is, Buddhism,
historically has the concept of a literal devil. Now you can either accept that fact or
you can continue to deny it, either way, it remains true.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wrong you stated Satan exists solely because of Christianity when in fact there is
evidence to the contrary, that is what is under discussion. Your ludicrous assertion not
only remains contested but is now thoroughly refuted.

what i stated is that satan became a specific named individual in the new testament.

nothing you have blurted out has contested or refuted what i have said about satan.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
what i stated is that satan became a specific named individual in the new testament.

nothing you have blurted out has contested or refuted what i have said about satan.

here is actually what you said, verbatim,

indeed. satan wouldn't exist without christians

now its rather plain to see, that not only have you failed to acknowledge that there are
other traditions which also profess belief in a satanic agency, but you slithered and
zithered, introduced provisos and conceptual understandings, when in fact, the truth
was rather more simple.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
here is actually what you said, verbatim,

indeed. satan wouldn't exist without christians

yes, and it remains uncontested.

now its rather plain to see, that not only have you failed to acknowledge that there are
other traditions which also profess belief in a satanic agency, but you slithered and
zithered, introduced provisos and conceptual understandings, when in fact, the truth
was rather more simple.

i didn't say anything about a "satanic agency" not existing without the christians.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
yes, and it remains uncontested.

now its rather plain to see, that not only have you failed to acknowledge that there are
other traditions which also profess belief in a satanic agency, but you slithered and
zithered, introduced provisos and conceptual understandings, when in fact, the truth
was rather more simple.

i didn't say anything about a "satanic agency" not existing without the christians.

Still, the fact remains all this talk about 'satan' is much ado about nothing since there is no such being, it is all part of the mythology made up by man, christian or otherwise.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Still, the fact remains all this talk about 'satan' is much ado about nothing since there is no such being, it is all part of the mythology made up by man, christian or otherwise.

Even mythology is based on some truth. Take the mythology of evolution for example: Science books sometimes show drawings of the progression of a chimpanzee evolving into a man. The only truth in this myth is the beginning drawing that shows a chimpanzee and the ending drawing showing a man.