Greetings, Vajradhara
In my case, Christian Revelation is the evidence.
Thomas
I believe the intrasubjective evidence can signify that such is the case, the testimony in our Scriptures to the works as well as the words of Christ, for example. (Does intrasubjective evidence prove all that is contained in Buddhist doctrine?)i am unaware of any aspect of reality which is unchanging, static and eternal. i realize that this is the view of most monotheistic beings i just happen to believe that intersubjective evidence demonstrates that such is not the case.
Here again we differ in our views. The person, whilst a created nature, can be incorporated into the eternal by grace. This is a view unique to Christian Revelation, so I would not expect to find evidence of such in Buddhism, nor indeed, do the commentaries of Buddhism carry any authority in that regard.do you suppose that you could explain or demonstrate that there is an aspect of human beings that is eternal? in the entire history of Buddhism we have never found such and whilst it may be said that Buddha wasn't aware of the teachings of the Semetic traditions that should not lead a being to the conclusion that Buddha was unaware of eternalist views. in point of fact an eternalist view is considered to be Wrong View.
Not really. Any physiological phenomena will have its origin in the physical domain. Its cause might be otherwise, but not in any sense that can be quantified.you indicated that the change was physical in some dimension and i'm curious if we can quantify that phyiscal aspect.
A valid point. I should not have made it so exclusive. Rather I should have said this is the materialist/consumerist view that carries a lot of weight in the West, with (not all) scientists, as well as in other quarters.... there is no reason to equivocate Science and Scientists, in my estimation.
Does not a changed life itself count as evidence physically? Was not the Buddha recognised as a Buddha, or was his teaching accepted purely on faith? I would argue that each life is changed by those it comes into contact with, and they might experience the same (or similar) change in their own lives. How else then, would one be drawn to the Buddha, or even recognise him as such?... the changed lives of the followers is evidence of the efficacy of the path but really there is no way for another being to know this.
Yes I would, even the universe itself. However I do not hold that 'the event horizon' is as closed or as impermeable as some might assume.would you agree that every phenomena on this side of the event horizon of the start of this universe is subject to change and impermanent?
No, that is a qualitative difference, if such exist then they are essentially the same, they are replications, with variation, of the same thing. By metacosm I could say that which transcends the 'event horizon' of the material order. This universe is finite, which is a mode of manifestation of the infinite.i don't know what "metacosm" means. you are indicating that there is a universe, like this one, but somehow out of synch? is that different than the postulates that there are myriad universes that differ only in the position of one electron, one neutron, which are found in the field of Quantum Mechanics?
The view is neither monostic nor dualistic — although there are elements of both implied by certain doctrinal expressions. Each can only be properly understood in the light of the other however, and the both can only properly co-exist in the light of the Doctrine of the Trinity. I had always assumed Buddhism was a monism.i don't believe the monism has much foundation though i do agree that it is a superior view than dualism.
Are there not certain statements in Buddhism, for which there is no empirical evidence?how can one posit such a thing with no evidence? what being is non-changing?
In my case, Christian Revelation is the evidence.
Thomas