On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:09:35AM -0800, Steven Brust wrote: > Remember, this part of the discussion revolved around my claim that the > word "religion" implies the belief in something superhuman, and some else's > claim that, by this definition, Buddhism is not a religion. I insist that, > by this definition, it is. That's my only claim on this issue. Right, there's more to the science/religion debate than God. Science has to bail out on the First Cause (not that anyone else has anything concrete to say about it) but can be pretty darn confident IMNSHO about their being no room or need for a soul. Well, maybe I'm projecting here, but it does seem this way to me. OTOH, Steve, I think your insistence about Buddhism revering superhuman powers was a bit confusing. Supernatural elements, yeah, and as I said a lot of powers where Buddhism has usually been practised, but people over here probably usually don't think in terms of hells and demons and flying Wu Don masters... -xx- Damien X-)