Mahayana's view of arhats
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
most of these karma are neutral.to understand more
http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/buddha/Teachings/009-kamma2.htm
/\
I note you have pasted from a source but I am posing these questions just for discussion:
1) "But according to the Buddhist philosophy, ......... ". In this forum, many objected to my statement 'Buddhism began as a philosophy ...' so what is this 'Buddhist philosophy' in the website source you posted?
2) "The doctrine of kamma is based on the principle of causality or the law of cause and effect. It is the natural law of morality, .....". The principle of causality should rightly be called the law of cause and effect because like gravity, it exists and everything is subjected to 'cause and effect'. Science has already recognised this. The Buddhist doctrine of kamma may have its base the law of causality but it is more than that because it is extended to apply to morality i.e. do good and you get good in return, do bad and you get bad consequence - to put it simply. The only problem is that the 'effect' may or may not arise or take time 'to ripen'. I find this a paradox. If it is a law, the effect MUST (absolutely) follows the cause, regardless. Therefore, kamma cannot be said to be a 'natural law of morality'.
-
"1) "But according to the Buddhist philosophy, ......... ". In this forum, many objected to my statement 'Buddhism began as a philosophy ...' so what is this 'Buddhist philosophy' in the website source you posted?
It relates to the philosophical aspects of buddhism or buddhists. You need to brush up your comprehension.
2) "The doctrine of kamma is based on the principle of causality or the law of cause and effect. It is the natural law of morality, .....". The principle of causality should rightly be called the law of cause and effect because like gravity, it exists and everything is subjected to 'cause and effect'. Science has already recognised this. The Buddhist doctrine of kamma may have its base the law of causality but it is more than that because it is extended to apply to morality i.e. do good and you get good in return, do bad and you get bad consequence - to put it simply. The only problem is that the 'effect' may or may not arise or take time 'to ripen'. I find this a paradox. If it is a law, the effect MUST (absolutely) follows the cause, regardless. Therefore, kamma cannot be said to be a 'natural law of morality'.
Consulting: Did the scientists found anything to affect gravity yet? Note: Not about what causes gravity. Help me understand your statement; "If it is a law, the effect MUST (absolutely) follows the cause, regardless. Therefore, kamma cannot be said to be a 'natural law of morality'." by elaborating on this 'natural law of morality'.
-
Removed.
-
Removed.
-
Removed.
-
Removed.
-
All personal attacks and posts of off-topic nature are not allowed by forum rules and are thus removed.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
All personal attacks and posts of off-topic nature are not allowed by forum rules and are thus removed.
Understood.晚辈�教. I stand corrected.
-
Take sea as the example for the buddhas of ten directions. The waves are liken to the arahat whereas the current beneath the sea is mahayana
-
Originally posted by Amitayus48:
Take sea as the example for the buddhas of ten directions. The waves are liken to the arahat whereas the current beneath the sea is mahayana
????