To be a Catholic or Orthodox is to be a member of those particular institutions.

The crux of the matter is whether or not Catholics and Orthodox individuals can have a variety of opinions. Yes, they can have a variety of opinions, and, yes, they can have differing views on ethics. These are facts which are evident to anyone who cares to investigate the literature associated with these groups.

For example, some Catholic priests supported the American involvement in Vietnam, others opposed this: both took their positions due to ethical concerns.

That's beside the point: Hitler was uninterested in ethical opinions contrary to his own.

If someone supports violence in a particular situation, and is willing to reconsider this ethical position by hearing and duely considering the opinions of others, then they are capable of contributing to an ethical discussion. I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated: either someone is willing or is unwilling to consider different perspectives. Those who are unwilling have no place at the table, those who are willing do have a place at the table.

Again, I think you misunderstand evolution. I'm certainly no expert, but I have never heard an expert in the field give such an interpretation of evolutionary theory. If you know of such an expert, I would be very interested in hearing what they have to say.

Freud was also willing to consider views other than his own opinions. Thus, he would be able to actively contribute to an ethical discussion.

Which is fine, however, according to Karen Armstrong's biography of the Buddha, when Gautama set out after enlightenment, he was immediately recognized as being enlightened - thus, he was called the Buddha.

The particular instance you sight deals with followers who, after the Buddha was already recognized as the Awakened One, had the thought to call him by his name.

Because they are not relevant. You asked those two questions in case your assumption about the purpose of spiritual practice was accurate; I disagreed with your assumption regarding spiritual practice.

So "to be a Catholic or Orthodox is to be a member of those particular institutions". Then my next question is what is to be a member of those institutions? Surely it is not like having member's card. I thought that to be a catholic or an orthodox means to believe that their hierarchy is set by God and therefore the pope or patriarch cannot mistake since he has the holy ghost within him which was handed down to him through generations of priests and ultimately comes from apostles which received that on the pentecost. Therefore if one disagree with what is said in church he disagrees with God and his calling himself catholic/orthodox is just a nonsense like a son of barren mother.

O madonna! Didn't he have debates with his opponents? How could he win the elections without rejecting their views?
Surely, according to thy view he was a masohist who had no concerns about his own life...

And thou makest that discussion impossible. If someone is willing to change his own views, he is almost the perfect man because he understands that happiness cannot be attained without unconditioned Truth. There are very, very few people in the world who are willing to do that, who recognise that. And those who take part in discussions are willing almost always not to find truth but to reject opponent so as to satisfy their vanity or to gain votes. And the main point here is to make people understand the urgency of unbiased hearing. Yet thou wantest to speak to those only who are capable to find Truth even without thy advice.

I am that expert and I am at your service. Why must we always seek for a specialist and don't want to enquire in the matter ourselves? Find what is here contradictive and then say, there is no need to search for other expert.

Well, I have also something to oppose to this, recalling his break with all who refused to acknowledge his interpretation of the role of symbol in psychoanalysis...

Well, that was like they did not want to greet him at all but could not help that. Now, let us imagine by what criterion they realised that he was "enlightened". Where does that criterion come from?

Alright. Then, I should ask: what means to be better? To advance in a certain religious path, that is to correspond with a certain pattern as much as possible? How do I know that this is "objectively better"?

Yeah, membership card, figuratively speaking. I'd have to double check, but my guess is that membership is determined by a combination of baptism and confirmation.

Hitler did not win popular vote elections: he won elections in the Reichstag.

I really have no idea what you are saying here.

Really? You are an expert in evolutionary biology?

We seek out the opinion of experts because they devote their lives to a particular study, thus, their perspectives are better informed than the perspectives of lay people, like myself. When the issue concerns something as complicated as evolutionary biology, expert opinion is exceedingly valuable.

We are talking about ethics, not dream interpretation. Even still, Freud disagreed with people regarding the interpretation of symbols after extensively considering their perspectives..

By the same criterion that we realize a plate is hot to the touch, or that ice is cool.

Don't ask me, ask a Buddhist monk.

From what I have read, being a better person typically deals with being more kind and compassionate, more understanding, and so forth, but there is a great deal to Buddhist thought. You'd have to ask an expert for a detailed account of everything involved.

Were it so, no one would ever be excommunicated from church. It amuses me to here that since I have gone through baptism and confirmation (which is, if I am not mistaking, absent in both Catholicsm and orthodoxy), I can say whatever I like, even reject the hierarchy and still remain in church.

So as to win those election he had to consider the views of the opponents and find contradictions within them.

Thou art here almost two years, if I am not mistaking. Were there many people whose only purpose was to find truth, and not to satisfy their vanity?

Look here, man, it's just so easy to understand. Animals are fighting for food, female, place in the sun, right? That is their life is continuation of their own physical existence and existence of their kin. They don't know what is compassion, non-violence, celebacy etc. And if we are animals, all we need is the same, thou followst that? But resourses are limited, therefore we have to agree not to kill one another and respect rights on females. That is to say desire to have better food, better sexual partner is present yet it is suppressed by violence from society, do I not contradict myself? That is the thing we call Pavlovian conditioning. For example, a child which is not yet conditioned want only pleasure: to suck breast, to be safe etc. For it the interests of others (for example that his mother want to sleep) does not play any role. Even some time after they share their sweets with siblings very unwillingly and mother has to reproach or punish them so as to condition them to do that. This conditioning, according to evolutional theory, causes all our moral taboos. Why dost thou not go naked? Because thy parents, environment conditioned thee that it is bad, although we feel that now in summer it would be not bad. Thus without violence, according to evolutional theory, there is no morality, since all we want is pleasure which leads to continuation of physical existence of these protein bodies.

He considered their arguments and rejected them. They considered his arguments and rejected them. Do we have two truth in the world? Is there place for discussion at all?

If I don't what is to be cool and have to deal with ice for the first time I don't know that it is cool but have only a feeling of something. Then someone comes and explains that this means to be cool. In case with Gautama, I may feel that he is very charismatic, emit positive emotions, but to know that he is buddha I can't, unless someone tells me what means to be buddha. Thus the next question is: wherefrom that expert knows that.

Hey, friend, is thy role here is to send every one to the Lord Expert?

We are discussing what means to be objectively better, not according to buddhism or any religion. To be better is to to be happier, right? Therefore, we need to enquire in what leads to happiness and what are the obstacles, rifgt?

The issue was whether or not Catholics can have differing opinions. As a matter of fact, they can disagree amongst themselves. This is not uncommon. Theologians debate.

No, he had to strong arm opposition with his personal military and blame the Jews for Germany's economic woes.

Few and far between, but these people do exist.

This is quite a jumble of theories, most of it being psychology and not evolutionary biology.

Obviously there is a place for discussion as society has undergone moral improvements based on moral discussions - the moral discussion of slavery being a great example.

The number and nature of the truth(s) is exactly what constitutes an ethical discussion.

Words have meanings, you know? Buddhahood, the term, means to be perfectly enlightened. You might go to a dictionary, or in the case of Indians at the time, the classical literature of that continent.

I thought we were talking about Buddhism, with respect to enlightenment and spiritual practice, what those things mean.

Again, as to what means to be catholic, I think it is ridiculous to say that catholic is one who underwent baptism and confirmation. So those who became atheists when grew up are catholics nevertheless? Is it possible to say: "I am catholic (as thou determinedst that) -- I don't believe in God?"

Hmm... My textbook on history says he won democratic elections in Reichstag. Therefore, he had to deal with other people's opinions at that time.

Agree, but in life we need deal with the majority, therefore we should try to convey truth to everyone and have discussion with everybody if he wants to.

Does it matter? The question is whether or not such a view must be present at discussion. Does it not reject ethics as thou hast said?

Well, but it seems to me that this not our question. I asked whether a man like Freud should be present even though he clung to his system. I think he should if not to brought over then to show others groundlessness of their views so that they may not have hidden adherents.

Words have meaning. O.K. Hast thou never heard that people cannot give name to the feelings they have.

Now, the term "Buddhahood" may mean whatever its author put in it, right?

Except that I never said that there was only Baptism and Confirmation. Sheesh.

Elections in the Reichstag. Not popular elections among the people, ie, democratic elections.

Explain to me what a person could contribute to an ethical conversation if that same person has nothing to contribute to an ethical conversation? I am not making a complicated claim here.

Evolutionary theory does not reject ethics. Evolutionary theory explains the origin of species. Ethics deals with how and when a person should act, not how humans evolve. The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

And I said a person like Freud should be admitted to the discussion.

And what does this have to do with the meaning of the term "Buddha"? Buddha has a deinition - you can go look it up if you do not understand the definition of the word.

What else?

What is the differemce?

Rejecting his views, showing their incosistence we can make clear truth if not for the person, then for his supporters. I think this has value.

Does the things I've told thee not reject ethics?

I think that if pleasure is the only good, then we should do things which cannot be called moral. I can't see thy point. Dost thou mean that evolutionary theory and psychology that consider man as being animal doesn't imply that pleasure is only good?

Well, a person who considers the words of others and rejects them should be admitted even if he can't show others inconsistence of their views. That sounds strange.

Art thou satisfied with such a definition and ready to propose it to a person who is asking what it is?

So for others it is impossible to know whether or not one is in that state

Why are you asking me the particular requirements of being Catholic? I am not Catholic: if you are interested, go ask one. Or look it up. What I do know is that the Church has certain requirements for membership, and that one is a Catholic if those requirements are met.

The Reichstag was the general assembly in Germany, as opposed to the voting population of Germany.

Sure - but the person in question, who has nothing to contribute, need not be present for his views to be shown false. For example: Hitler need not be in the room in order for us to explain why his moral notions are immoral.

Evolutionary theory makes no claim regarding what is the good for man.

Nor does psychology make any such claim as the good for man. That's not what psychology is about, as I understand it.

Maybe it is strange, but that's not what I said.

Except that you provide nothing to support this assertion. You can go read the Buddhist literature if you like: there stands a long tradition in Buddhism of people being able to recognize their teachers and enlightened beings. This begins with the historic Shakyamuni Buddha.

It seems to me that I shown thee that requirements.

I can't see thy point. He won elections in Reichstag, right? Because his arguments were more convincing to others than those of other parties, right? Therefore, he had to met some objections. Therefore, he was able to debate.

How dost thou know what are his genuine ideas? Before death he said he had always wanted peace... I think that it is only person who may convey what he thinks. Therefore we cannot make judgement in absence of the accused. By the way in the S.U. they also critisised religion without debates with religious people making stress that religion is nothing but a set of superstitions. The same, probably, is being done with Hitler.

And it also doesn't make any claim regarding free will, religion etc.? I'd recommend thee to read Freud a little and that will probably correct thine opinion.

So what didst thou said exactly? There must be present only people who are ready to change their minds, right? Therefore if someone proposes a correct idea everyone must agree with that. Therefore, how can there be variety of views?

I know that enlightened zen masters are not enlightened for theravadins. Theravada's arhatship is not what adherents of mahayana want. Therefore, one is buddha in one tradition and not buddha in another. Therefore, their understanding has nothing to do with truth.

Some of zen masters were accused of sexual harrasment in the U.S. But they were recognised as enlightened...

You have yet to cite Catholic dogma regarding membership in that organization. Instead you provided unfounded speculation.

No. Hitler won elections because he had a personal army that persecuted those who opposed him.

To argue that Hitler wanted peace is to ignore every shred of evidence - to entertain the notion that Hitler wanted peace is downright ahistorical. Hitler was obsessed with bloodshed.

Freud was not involved in evolutionary theory. Further, Freud's psychology is read only out of respect for him being an early founded of the science, not because his theories are taken seriously in today's academic circles.

I said exactly what I typed.

People should be admitted to the conversation if they are willing to give other views an honest hearing, if they are willing to consider other perspectives.

A variety of correct views can exist because views are expressed in language. The truth can be stated in many different ways.

No.

First, you are confusing Arhat with Bodhisattva.

Second, anyone recognized as fully enlightened according to Mahayana standards will also be recognized as enlightened by Theravada standards.

I can only assume you are speaking of the Naropa University incident. Trungpa's status as enlightened is disputed given that he was a heavy alcoholic for much of his life. Technically, he is considered a tulku, and would therefore be enlightened, but given his lifestyle this distinction is sometimes dismissed. By the way, he was a Tibetan Buddhist teacher and charges of sexual harrasment were almost immediately cleared up. If you have some other incident in mind, let me know.

ethics was always a given

Given by whom, and for what purpose? What does this mean, exactly?

Got any historical examples of what you mean, exactly? Given that the human species might have evolved an ethical concept, how was this expressed, exactly, if not through religions?