It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bogomil
As a parallel to all these convoluted speculations based on more speculations based on faith, I will bring in zen-buddhism, which approaches reality from the direction of experiencing it directly.
Alternatively, for the more lazy and ritualistically minded, the simple method of putting a spaghetti strainer on your head and say something like "Ramen" or "All hail the great noodle master" after which you will be a member of the officially recognized religion pastafarianism.
And I can assure everybody, that pastafarianism is as valid a reality-seeking method as what's presented on this thread.
Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Originally posted by bogomil
As a parallel to all these convoluted speculations based on more speculations based on faith, I will bring in zen-buddhism, which approaches reality from the direction of experiencing it directly.
Alternatively, for the more lazy and ritualistically minded, the simple method of putting a spaghetti strainer on your head and say something like "Ramen" or "All hail the great noodle master" after which you will be a member of the officially recognized religion pastafarianism.
And I can assure everybody, that pastafarianism is as valid a reality-seeking method as what's presented on this thread.
Buddhism is relatively young compared to the Bible. The ancient Phoenician predates it all. This is the root language of mankind in the east. Much of the Buddhist words are directly linked to Sanskrit and the Phoenician language. The silk road gave Buddhism most of its ideas from the Canaanites. I would bother to link but this is basic linguistic history that is easily searched through Google books. LINK
edit on 21-9-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)
Staying stricly with the formulation as you have presented it, 'buddhism' per se is considerably older than 'the bible' per se.
But now I'm generally not very as enthusiastic about such semanticism as you are, so I just pointed it out as being a meaningless input.
As to 'roots', hinduism as the root of buddhism beats OT lore with some centuries (depending on how it's considered) or at least is contemporary with it.
Besides, what has age to do with validity. Validity is not like a wine, which needs to mature.
Quote highlighted: ["The silk road gave Buddhism most of its ideas from the Canaanites."]
And poor me, who in my youth professionally functioned in a capacity if informing people about buddhism in a non-religious setting (and tutored by a reknowned expert in the field) got it all wrong.
PS Linguistic back-tracing as a 'proof' of anything except linguistics is one of those fads popping up in cultural anthropology, like when genealogy was a craze. It has since then popped down again.
Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Staying stricly with the formulation as you have presented it, 'buddhism' per se is considerably older than 'the bible' per se.
But now I'm generally not very as enthusiastic about such semanticism as you are, so I just pointed it out as being a meaningless input.
As to 'roots', hinduism as the root of buddhism beats OT lore with some centuries (depending on how it's considered) or at least is contemporary with it.
Besides, what has age to do with validity. Validity is not like a wine, which needs to mature.
Quote highlighted: ["The silk road gave Buddhism most of its ideas from the Canaanites."]
And poor me, who in my youth professionally functioned in a capacity if informing people about buddhism in a non-religious setting (and tutored by a reknowned expert in the field) got it all wrong.
PS Linguistic back-tracing as a 'proof' of anything except linguistics is one of those fads popping up in cultural anthropology, like when genealogy was a craze. It has since then popped down again.
Buddhism is younger than the Bible by a long shot. 650 BC compared to Moses 1271 BC.