3 ms·
>That’s explicitly not what you’re asking. You quite literally asked what this implies about Buddhism It's one and the same question. >Frankly you’ve already
by kilgnad 4y ago
>That’s explicitly not what you’re asking. You quite literally asked what this implies about Buddhism
It's one and the same question.
>Frankly you’ve already “snuck in” the caveat in your comment above: “you have to question the foundations of the church if it happens regularly.”
An entire temple is equivalent to "regularly" in this case. It is not a curious event.
I will say that another user did say that it was only 4 monks. That makes it a curious event. But the click bait headline by itself does not indicate that.
- ethanbond 4y agoYeah it’s literally the second sentence of the article. That explains a lot. Not understanding the topic you’re making inflammatory arguments about (at least to the depth of Sentence 2 of the discussed article) is fully on you. But yeah, you know, “asking questions the way Siddhartha did.”
- kilgnad 4y agoI missed that sentence. Skimmed to quick. I readily admit my mistakes because I treat this thread as a discussion not a holy war. Next time I recommend you do the same instead of assuming something is "inflammatory" because you've been outright rude. It's a poor display of whatever you represent. Anyway this conversation is over. My question is answered and I have no wish to discuss anything further with you specifically. Good day.