[net.religion] Arguments re: existence vs. non-existence, etc.

walsh@ihuxi.UUCP (B. Walsh) (03/21/84)

All this hoopla about "Prove God's existence" and "Prove God's
non-existence" brought to my mind some passages from ""The Teachings of
the Compassionate Buddha":

	Why was Buddha so confident that concern with metaphysical
	theories is unprofitable and does not tend toward spiritual
	edification? ...

	In the first place, no particular theory on such matters can
	be clearly established, as against alternative views. All alike
	are spun from sense data whose perception, in the case of each
	metaphysician, inevitably reflects his variable passions and
	egoistic demands. Thus, in the second place, the assertion of
	any such theory naturally provokes the assertion of counter-
	theories by others; this process generates heated and conten-
	tious argument, with its accompanying unresolved hostilities
	and mutual recriminations. It does not promote the humble
	self-searching and unity of understanding that are essential
	if the true spiritual goal is to be reached.

	Any supposed truth that cannot be spoken in love and inward
	peace is not truth.

Buddha had sense enough not to get involved in such questions as
"What is the meaning of life?" because they detracted the asker from 
the path to "Enlightenment."

B. Walsh

sjh@CS-Mordred (Steve Holmes) (03/23/84)

Along the lines of Brian Walsh's quote from the Teachings of the 
Compassionate Buddha see also the first line from the Tao Te Ching
one translation of which reads:

	The Tao that can be spoken is not the 
	Eternal Tao