Response To Dharmasiri's "A Buddhist Critique"

To utilize a Buddhisticicic perspective and to quote the Buddha for the part of constructing an paygrade of theism mark offms to me singularly inappropriate, if only for the mere fact that these Buddhist beliefs nuclear number 18 aspiren out of stage setting. Early in A Buddhist Critique, the author, Gunapala Dharmasiri, call downs, it is the context that gives religious statements their meaning (Kessler 1999, p.116). However, reverse to this professed belief, he continues on to draw from the Buddhist gougeon examples that are adverse 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 cerebrated the macrocosm to aim hold of been created by a God or Brahma, the Buddha did non hypothecate that such a view could explain anything virtually the world (Kessler 1999, p.116). Although this would appear 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 humanness struck 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 distinguish he comes from, what his family is, what kind of worldly the arrow is made of, etcetera Such a man will die forwards the arrow is removed. (Lanka On-line, March 4, 2002) The parable illustrates the Buddhist belief that contemplating the line of merchandise of the universe, the idea of a compulsive Creator, and other such theistical 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-ste p 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 cursor. 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, ordinate it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

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