<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/1165951</link>
		<description>Comments by bradzatit</description>
<item>
<title>Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : A Difficult Pill: The Problem with Stephen Batchelor and Buddhism’s New Rationalists</title>
<link>http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/a-difficult-pill-the-problem-with-stephen-batchelor-and-buddhism%e2%80%99s-new-rationalists/#IDComment104464759</link>
<description>Vincent,  It might have more than a little to do with gaining research money.  I don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s a matter of handily claiming rebirth doesn&amp;#039;t occur/exist as much as it doesn&amp;#039;t really seem to have anything in it that represents material gain: there&amp;#039;s no medical application that&amp;#039;s been imagined, there&amp;#039;s no direct societal gain anyone can imagine, and so on.  It&amp;#039;s a bit of capitalism flying in the face of doctrine me thinks.  There&amp;#039;s no major research being undertaken on the Xtian doctrine of life after death at the moment... </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:53:17 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/a-difficult-pill-the-problem-with-stephen-batchelor-and-buddhism%e2%80%99s-new-rationalists/#IDComment104464759</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : A Difficult Pill: The Problem with Stephen Batchelor and Buddhism’s New Rationalists</title>
<link>http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/a-difficult-pill-the-problem-with-stephen-batchelor-and-buddhism%e2%80%99s-new-rationalists/#IDComment104464433</link>
<description>Mitsu, I&amp;#039;m 111% in love with the word paraconventional.  Thank you! </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:49:09 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/a-difficult-pill-the-problem-with-stephen-batchelor-and-buddhism%e2%80%99s-new-rationalists/#IDComment104464433</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Buddhist Geeks : Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism : A Difficult Pill: The Problem with Stephen Batchelor and Buddhism’s New Rationalists</title>
<link>http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/a-difficult-pill-the-problem-with-stephen-batchelor-and-buddhism%e2%80%99s-new-rationalists/#IDComment104439358</link>
<description>well, hmmm...  I don&amp;#039;t think Batchelor&amp;#039;s our Christopher Hitchens, but it would be great if he were!  I think karma is the tip of the spear here, not rebirth.  There&amp;#039;s not much to rebirth, doctrinally, anyway:  it happens and if you fuck up it&amp;#039;ll be bad.  Personally there&amp;#039;s not much I can do with that, scientific study or philosophical speculation notwithstanding.  Karma, on the other hand, is fairly juicy.  It&amp;#039;s hugely macro, cosmologically so, and ridiculously micro.  It&amp;#039;s implicated in human memory and learning, and somehow manages to imply that the entire cosmos has a similar operational layer.  That notion alone could be worth 20-40 double-spaced typewritten pages right there.  40 pages on rebirth would just be pushing a cautionary bedtime story into some slightly different shape.  My question is whose practices and what specific practices depend upon the doctrine of rebirth?  Technically.  When has rebirth as a teaching been presented in any other way other than a rationale for practice? </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 17 Oct 2010 05:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/a-difficult-pill-the-problem-with-stephen-batchelor-and-buddhism%e2%80%99s-new-rationalists/#IDComment104439358</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>