It seems like you are missing his point. His point is that Buddhism as a system, and especially his version of it, which you were asking about, is focused on practice - mindfullness, for example - and not centered in the beliefs, especially about things he does not feel he knows the answers to. Chrisitianity is often centered on beliefs - it needn’t be and there are versions and individuals whose focused on practices - but Buddhism is much more about practices. In fact you will find pressues by teachers and masters in many of the versions of Buddhism to get people to stop trying to resolve things they are not in a position to, to stop mulling over everything and/or to disidentify with that portion of themselves. It is an approach to suffering less or, to put it a bit paradoxically, to suffer one’s suffering less. Yes, there may be Karma and reincarnation and enlightenment, but it is considered for the most part problematic to even fuss of this stuff, first of all because one cannot understand it. It’s like a child trying to understand what a loving sex act is like and what the clues are that a sex act might be problematic. They are just not in any position to understand any of that, if they haven’t been abused. It’s bizzarre to ask how a diagnosis of fatal corona is applicable to karman and enlightmentment. It’s more like how might the practices of Buddhism be applicable to finding out one might be dying. Or how might the idea of Karma be helpful in that situation. In Felix’s case much more the former question.
You say ‘this mindfullness’ being factored somehow into an understanding in the context of an abortion. It’s more like even this very charged situation can be aided directly by mindfulness. And truly, it is something that is ridiculous to even talk about since the word mindfullness is not one you understand. You understand it only as an abstraction. For Felix it is presumably a description of something he has experienced for years. You are trying to talk about something you don’t understand and cannot come to understand via words on a screen.
Right, you are centered on beliefs. Buddhism is about relieving suffering and also about experiencing life in a more focused and potentially joyful way. Your questions and demands are a consistant category error. And that’s because you have no interest in Buddhism. You’ve even acknowledge that there is a great deal of evidence people benefit from the practices. You’ve been told by people with much more experience than you that it is about practices. Yet you demand that it’s beliefs be objective and solve things like the abortion issue, and you show no interest in Buddhist practice. Fine, skip to some other religion or path or therapeutic process. This one’s not for you. You have no interest in it and you don’t listen to the people who have more knowledge and experience than you. For example, that you are basically making category errors.
It is objectively true that many people benefit from Buddhist practices. Since people are different not all modalities are going to work for all people. You are not interested in the practices, or seeing if by any chance you are one of the people who benefits. Perhaps if you practiced for a long time then you would find out something about some of the ultimate metaphysical issues you want answers to now. Perhaps not. If you participated and felt better, according to your own evaluation, then there is no loss. Right now you want answers that you can’t possible understand and in fact are considered blocks to what is considered growth away from suffering in Buddhism. A car mechanic is not going to fix you teeth.
Total category error.
Yes, because you have blind faith that you can make evaluations of things you have no experience of via words on a screen from your bedroom. The Buddhists who decided certain kinds of metaphysical conclusions spent vast periods of time doing things you have no experience of. You haven’t the slightly basis for saying it is faith, which is precisely not what Buddhism is about.
You are essentially so far from making any sense when you encounter Buddhism and show no interest in learning about Buddhism in any practical experiential sense that I find myself pointing out things about a system I do not like.
You always talk about bringing the debate down to concrete things. In this the Buddhist is with you. Shut the fuck up and meditate. Get some help with it if you need it. That’s concrete. You’re just throwing words and abstractions at a tradition you know nothing about, and making that clear in the way you talk about it and expect it to work for you on your verbal abstract issues. You’re not interested.
What you present is a lie here. And you were just rude to Felix by not really reading or even trying to understand what he said to you. The guy spent some time to answer your questions. The least you could do is notice his answers, consider it possible that in some way he is representing a Buddhist response. A tiny step, not the final answer to all these metaphysical ideas and to resolving all the problems of the world. That a quasi-Buddhist in good faith offered you something you might be able to use as a step in a direction. You evaluate everything as ‘did it just solve all moral conflicts’ or’ did it prove to me I will never truly die’. That’s the attitude of a child. Fine we all have those child yearnings in us, to understand the ultimate answers without doing anything and right now, thanks Mom. But an adult that turns to the keyboard and the screen, and actually considers that perhaps tiny steps are necessary to get to knowledge and solutions to the world’s problems. Would you want to make that first step? Would you want to try what this person respectfully suggesting suggests? No is a fine answer. It hopefully shows you read and deciding that isn’t a step you want to take. Not even giving a shit about what the person wrote is rude. It’s also a terrible way to use experts ro people with more knowledge and experience than you in a specific area. You call the expert and then ignore them. No, you know how they should teach you and what you need to understand their area of expertise. Not them, you. If you’re real purpose was to learn, then you’re not only being rude to them, but to yourself.