Response To Dharmasiri's "A Buddhist Critique"

To utilize a Buddhisticicic perspective and to quote the Buddha for the part of constructing an military rating of theism delayms to me singularly inappropriate, if only for the mere fact that these Buddhist beliefs atomic number 18 agreen out of circumstance. Early in A Buddhist Critique, the author, Gunapala Dharmasiri, commonwealths, it is the context that gives religious statements their meaning (Kessler 1999, p.116). However, reversal to this professed belief, he continues on to draw from the Buddhist gougeon examples that are obdurate when non viewed in light of other essential Buddhist beliefs. Thus, Dharmasiri becomes caught up in his own trap by citing Buddhist examples out of context. For example, the author calls upon the fact that, though others deald the macrocosm to fixate hold of been created by a God or Brahma, the Buddha did not hypothecate that such a view could explain anything approximately the world (Kessler 1999, p.116). Although this would a ppear to lead to the fact that the Buddha did not believe in a supreme deity, it does not when viewed in context. Dharmasiri fails to state that the Buddha neither accepted nor jilted such a belief. In dress to more readily understand what the Buddha meant, the context should be fork outd, for example, in the form of the following fable: The Buddha compares a hu homophile race ghost with speculation to a while afflicted by a acerbateed arrow. A man has been struck by a poison arrow and he is dying. When a physician comes to him and offers to remove the arrow, the man says No, I wont let you take out the arrow, until you tell me the give of the man who shot me, what manikin he comes from, what his family is, what kind of worldly the arrow is made of, and so on Such a man will die forward the arrow is removed. (Lanka On-line, March 4, 2002) The parable illustrates the Buddhist belief that contemplating the rakehell of the universe, the idea of a compulsive Creator, a nd other such theistic subjects, is futile ! because it does not provide people with the path to salvation. This does not mean that the Buddha forthrightly rejected the belief in a Supreme Beinghe merely did not see it as functional.

        Apart from the above-stated example, others are to be found in the text that depart from the old Buddhist belief that the origins do not matter, rather it is the event that is significant. Thus, in utilizing the Buddhist dogma to argue theism, Dharmasiri is contradicting himself by pickings the former ideas out of context and by forgetting that original Buddhism can be explained as an eight-step scheme to attaining salvation with the Buddha as a physician figure and with no thought to the past or to origins, be it of the world or of God. Works Cited Dharmasiri, Gunapala. A Buddhist Critique. In Philosophy of Religion. Gary E. Kessler, ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Pp. 115-122. Lanka-Online. The Man stricken by the Poison pointer. Lanka On-line. March 4, 2002. http://www.lanka.com/dhamma/dhamma/man_struck_by_the.htm If you loss to get a full essay, allege it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper