DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - 4 Questions for Matthieu Ricard, Tibetan monk

**6M8PJigS** · 04-14-2011, 09:35 PM

The Buddha said:
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form, feeling, perception, fabricating and/or consciousness to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication."

There's also another explanation which seems rather plausible. Maybe the Buddha was wrong. That seems like something that most Buddhists won't even consider because otherwise they wouldn't be Buddhists would they?

Element, is it possible that the Buddha was wrong? Or partially wrong? Is it not even a possibility, theoretically speaking?

Buddhists have a propensity to turn this man (which may or may not have existed) into a god. A god in the sense that he is infallible and inerrant in his conclusions and convictions. What you have here is analogous to the Christian glorification of their bible. They see the bible and inerrant and infallible even when they don't know whether it is or not.

Some may say, "Yeah, but the Buddha tells us to test his words and never to believe them because he says so." Christians say the same thing about scripture, but interestingly enough they continue to "believe" in it whether their tests reveal anything or not.

Surely there have been adherents to the path of Buddha that have tested his theories and conclusions, and found them to be wrong.

04-14-2011, 09:35 PM	#8
6M8PJigS Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 439 Senior Member	The Buddha said: There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form, feeling, perception, fabricating and/or consciousness to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication." There's also another explanation which seems rather plausible. Maybe the Buddha was wrong. That seems like something that most Buddhists won't even consider because otherwise they wouldn't be Buddhists would they? Element, is it possible that the Buddha was wrong? Or partially wrong? Is it not even a possibility, theoretically speaking? Buddhists have a propensity to turn this man (which may or may not have existed) into a god. A god in the sense that he is infallible and inerrant in his conclusions and convictions. What you have here is analogous to the Christian glorification of their bible. They see the bible and inerrant and infallible even when they don't know whether it is or not. Some may say, "Yeah, but the Buddha tells us to test his words and never to believe them because he says so." Christians say the same thing about scripture, but interestingly enough they continue to "believe" in it whether their tests reveal anything or not. Surely there have been adherents to the path of Buddha that have tested his theories and conclusions, and found them to be wrong.
	Quote