1 You note the following: " A Buddha is a person who has gained enlightenment as well as escaped the cycle of reincarnation."

This means Buddha reached nirvana.

What is nirvana and how does it differ from the Christian idea of heaven?

Responses:

1
My everyday approach on life would describe me as an inclusivist. I feel that out of all the religious approaches this one fits perfectly with my tolerant behavior. I've never been the type to force my views on religion or life onto another person. I respect everyone's opinion and chose in religion that speaks to their morals. According to the fourth edition of The World's Religion in America inclusivist may also be known as relativist. This terms mean the truth is relative to the person who holds, so whomever or whatever you put your faith in is the truth to you.

I consider many of my older relatives as exclusivist, they refuse to consider the ideas of another religion as true. I believe the stubborn comes from the type of generation they grew up it, back then you believed in what your parents told you and you stuck to it no matter what anybody else said. This type of attitude makes it hard to have a conversation with them about other religious ideas because they began to become defense, or sometimes even shutdown during a religious conversation.

I do not see my approach on religion needing to change if I was taking a religious course, since I have a very open mind and a tolerant attitude people's views would not offend me rather they are positive or negative. During discussions on religious topics I would be able to take in everyone's emotions and attitudes towards things they dislike or don't agree with.

2.
Exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism and empathetic interest in other people are extremely interesting approaches or shall we say reactions to religion. We live today in a pluralistic society, we are all different in our thought processes and perspectives. These differences not only define who we are but they can create within us a great appreciation for the world around us. The question is can we approach religion from only one perspective all the time? Or are we allowed to approach religion differently in different situations?

Without doubt in an academic setting the primary objective is to know the nature of things. But this knowledge is what is called Wissenschaft knowledge. That is to know of something what it is. This type of knowledge is in juxtaposition to Kenntnis knowledge. That is to know by experiences. An easy way to understand these two types of knowledge are to look at the statement, "I know Sarah". Well what exactly does that mean? Do you know her name? Do you know her features? Or have you experienced her and know her deeply?

So when we speak about knowing religion, we should first clarify what type of familiarity are we referring to. Is it possible to truly know a religion and here we mean a Wissenschaft knowledge, by studying it from an empathetic interest of others approach? Or is it necessary to go closer to it to really understand and know it. In the age of distance learning we have begun to think that all knowledge is a Kenntnis knowledge, just like a young man or woman who thinks they know what copulation is because they have watched it online. Far be they from the reality. The senior and experienced lover would chuckle over the freshmen's knowledge of lovemaking.

And he we return to the main question. Can you truly know a religion without experiencing it? Perhaps one can acquaint themselves with the names and stories of the tradition, but is that what religion is?

We all know individuals who approach religion as an exclusivist, as well as those who approach it as a mere topic of study. But can one combine both of these two ends on the spectrum of thought?

Well, without doubt we will attempt so. We will be asked to study that which for some of us is as conclusive as one plus one equaling two and as inconceivable as three plus two equaling six objectively. We will attempt to take that which exclusively experiential and measure it as if its priori.