From: (Anonymous)	Date: November 24th, 2004 08:16 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Once again, you are proving the Bible to be TRUE. Again, I applaud you ... keep up the good work! The fact that you get on here and criticize EVERY religion (especially Christianity ... that says something in itself), is very prophetic ... Biblically that is. You see, you are playing into what it is written in the Bible. As God states in the Bible, there will be a day when there will be a one-world religion (because EVERYONE will listen to people like you and decide we all need to be on the same page, religiously, to make everyone happy and be at peace with each other). Then, of course, that one-world religion will be abolished/destroyed by the Anti-Christ because he, alone, will want to be worshipped. You see, you are marching right along with God's Word, the Bible! I love reading everything you and others submit on this site. It excites me to no end because I see God's word unfolding before me. Thank you for confirming that God's Word is eternal and true (not that I needed to be convinced anyhow). Please, keep up the good work! Thanks so much!

From: (Anonymous)	Date: May 2nd, 2005 04:47 am (UTC)		(Link)
Learn

You need to study Buddhism a tad more before you comment on it.

Buddhist don't know or care if a/the historical Buddha existed. If he did not, that would not have any serious effects on Buddhism. You are trying to cater to christian readers who don't understand Buddhism to begin with, and in turn show your great ingnorance on the subject.

Points 1 and 2 could easily be true, but again does not matter to Buddhists.

In Point 3, You confuse modern day "new agers" that borrow from Hinduism (mostly) and Buddhism (a little). That's like calling the Aquarian Christ types or modern Gnostics representitives of Christianity. It's dishonest.

In Point 5, You show your ignorance or are pandering to christian readers. Many of the questions you pose that Buddhism "tries to answer", are meaningless in Buddhism. These "questions" are NOT answered in Buddhism because in Buddhism they are shown to be meaningless through direct experience and practice (not through words or scripture - sorry that leaves you nothing to quote).

In Point 4, you point out that Buddhism like any religion or philosophy can be used in bad ways. Big deal? So only Athiest are perfect? Now who's on a moral high horse?

Point 6 is so bad it would be funny, but I think your serious. Buddhism does NOT teach/condone/promote the idea that one should do nothing of suffering. Buddhism at its very core is about combating suffering, not its acceptance. Read a book, please. You are no doubt calling on the resources of "armchair" buddhists who read old texts riddled with ancient asian/indian superstitions and think it's somehow Buddhism (as you do).

Point 7 you illustrate the fact that differnt religions attract different types of people. That's true though I don't see how that's a criticism of Buddhism? That's just human nature.

As you say in point 8: "genuine Buddhists in the West are very hard to find." and most these days (even asians) will tell you that genuine Buddhist in the EAST are hard to find. The west is slowly getting the reputation of having the "true" Buddhists, with old superstions stripped away.

Please do yourself a favour and read a book on BUDDHISM that seperates old cultural superstitions from Buddhism itself. You probably won't buy into it, but at least you can spot a malinformed "new ager" from a Scripture Bookworm Monkey from a running horse and have the knowlege to tell them apart from an actual Buddhist.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: June 24th, 2005 03:10 am (UTC)		(Link)
eh

i dont like you or your websiteways have no right to show intolerance to other ways of thinking. its fine that you are christian if that works for you, but dude get a grip and keep your shitty ideas to yourself. no one likes a know-it-all.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: July 20th, 2005 06:17 am (UTC)		(Link)
Buddha

HI,
I read your points and I do agree with certain issues you have raised about Buddhism becoming yet another form of blind faith or a religious creed. Buddhist philosphy is not esoteric and is based on getting grips with your life and exerting "yourself" for self improvement.
I will try to clarify some of your arguments by one such story as said to have been related by Buddha himself:
If an arrow came and pierced a person, would he/she seek treatment only after, or would a doctor on examining the patient agree to treat the patient only after they had cleared these few points:
1. where did the arrow come from?
2. what was the birth/caste/race of the person who shot the arrow?
3. how tall was the person?
4. what color was the person?
5. which direction did the arrow come from?
6. what kind of a bow and arrow was it?
7. What speed was the arrow travelling?

... or would they seek a treatment that relievs pain and works to heal the wound?
That is why it is really not important to get involved in (fruitless) philosophical discussions about the birth of Buddha, his being or not being an aetheist, or on how many others might have missued his name to harm others. It also does not matter if he used any existing philosophy or he did not.

The Sati Pathana Sutta and the practise of Vipassana as a form of non sectarian meditation clearly and immediately points out the convergence of both, the philosophical and practical aspects of the method of Buddha's teaching.

Infact it is largely because most people have not had the opportunity of personally "Experiencing" the simple and direct impact of vipassana that they have tried to turn a secular, non sectarian phlosophy of the Buddha into a religion where they worship him and other deities for favours or "enlightment".

The Buddha, possibly like many others before him and after him found the seeds of truth and enlightenment within each sentinent being and his conception of an enlightened person is very simple, "He/she who does skillfull acts which are good for him/her and for others, is an enlightened person". However, inorder to even start doing skillfull acts (not "good" or "bad" acts) we have to train our mind from not reacting to situations and circumstances in our pre concieved ways. We have to break the chain of reactive action and thoughts, rather start looking and acting in a creative manner. Easier said than done, that is why one can practice Samtha meditation- the practice of stillness, Vipassana - the practice of Insight into reality and Maitrei- the practice of generating good will.

Where the question of "Reality vs. False Reality" is concerned; actually in all honesty and with all due humility the only truths which we can clain for our selves in this entire existence is that of Eternal Change and Interdependence of all phenomenon. There maybe other Truths, I cannot vouch for them, in my life I can say that there is not a single thing which is not changing and not a single thing which is not interdependent.
So then what is false reality, it is when we start believing in either Nihilism- there is nothing and it does not matter anyways or we believe in Absolutism- all that is there in the world etc. is truth and reality and it will always be so and some things even exist independent of anything else, i.e. god, spirit, soul,the universe, the act of creation.
Reality however shows that we cannot conclusively prove that there is anyone thing that does not or will never change or that there is something which exists independently of anything else.
It is Nihilism and Absolutism which causes us to believe in a false sense of the I as a non existing or a static fixed entitity. the truth is that there is an I but it is also continuously changing and adapting, so there is little reason to get fixated on the I.

Cheers and maybe we can meet again on the net.
Sachin Singh
kadamfilms@yahoo.com

From: (Anonymous)	Date: July 30th, 2005 11:46 am (UTC)		(Link)
point 3. on Buddhism

Point 3. reads well the first time. However I am currently researching Buddhism and therefore I'm not just going to take your evidence at face value. If you can find me a single article from a reliable source that doubts the historical evidence for Buddha I will be very impressed, because I cannot. The fact that the piece that you quote actually says that Historians are unanimous is a pretty good indicator that you are clutching at straws on this one. Some of the other points that you make are fair though.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: September 22nd, 2005 11:16 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Buddhism is not entirely solitary at all. Temples and congregations are widespread out here in America; in fact, my hometown has one dedicated to the Theravada tradition. This is mostly due to the Asian community we have out here, but in due time, whenever I feel apt to a religious service of any kind, I might just attend that one instead of a church. The only reason why I don't attend a temple is for the same reasons I don't attend a church either -- just disinterested.

And btw, are you aware that there are different schools of Buddhism too? The zen types are seemingly more superstitious than thervada and they believe in hell and all sorts of ghosts.