Fair enough. The difference is only that his primary teaching (what to do about the problem of suffering) was marketed as being applicable without having to believe in anything or perform any rituals.
-
-
So was Jesus', among others. This is not a unique move.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I didn't say it was unique. I doubt any of Jesus' followers called themselves Christians, just as none of the Buddha's followers called themselves Buddhists. In fact, in early Rome Christianity was considered to be just a cult.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm well aware. You're sort of making the point I was making.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Indeed. I call it "re-iterating".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yeah, but it doesn't real address THE point, which is that this is a standard founding myth that Buddhists pay inordinate attention to for some reason.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The reason being that Buddhists imagine that this somehow has any impact on the validity of the teachings. The reason I mention it is because it's common for people to dismiss anything someone says as "religion", without actually engaging in the content.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.