[saturninus.ribb]

One or two problems I have with it

1) The author writes that a misunderstanding of the first noble truth is that "Life is suffering" and suggests we look at it as "suffering is inherent in existence". However is this not the same thing?


2) The author describes Kamma as "The term karma translates literally as ‘action". However if we are discussing Buddhdhamma we should be clear of how the Buddha used the term, which was "Intentional action". The idea of kamma being action was a view of the Brahmans and the Jains.


3) I found this part to be quite vague

"For the skeptic to satisfactorily identify for themselves whether there is some form of
continuance after death is (short of dying and testing it out for oneself)
virtually impossible. However, in instances where a claim cannot be
personally verified, it must be conceded that blind skepticism is no more
rational than blind faith."

Im not really sure what he is trying to argue here



4) The links provided mostly lead to sites which a sceptic wouldnt be interested in, such as this one


http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswer...ding_karma.htm


Notice as well hos it implies that the starving child is being punished by "bad Kamma"




However I do appreciate what the author was trying to do with his book and there were some good points in it


metta