Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:Here's a thought experiment that I just developed, which I want to pose to all of you.
Let's assume that you've become the supreme leader of the world, and you have to make recommendations for the lives of five billion people. Say you have only two choices:
(a) Recommend that they become scientists.
(b) Recommend that they pursue the truths of Buddhism.
Let's say that, whichever your choice, these five billion people excel at their given roles.
A hundred years pass.
------------------
Depending on your choice, I suggest these will be your outcomes:
(a) Five billion scientists
These five billion scientists make wonderful progress in science, bringing about new methods of countering natural disasters. Cancer has been cured, while genetic engineering means that birth defects and diseases have been completely eradicated. We have new, sustainable ways of using our resources, ensuring the future survival of our planet.
On average, life is substantially better for everyone. There is less poverty and hunger, fewer diseases, and so on.
(b) Five billion earnest, devout Buddhists
These five billion Buddhists build up a great deal of positive karma. A few of them actually achieve enlightenment, while the majority of others are able to build up good karma for future lives.
However, the progress of science has halted. We continue to suffer from incurable diseases as we do today. Earthquakes and tsunamis continue to afflict us. We still do not have the means to sustain a population of seven billion.
-----------------
So here's the dilemma:
- The first group of scientists have built up no positive karma for themselves.
- However, through their efforts, the world has become substantially better to live in.
- Assuming rebirth, how then is it possible that these billion people are living better lives a 100 years later, given that there was no net increase in positive karma?
Conversely:
- The second group of Buddhists have built up positive karma for future lives.
- However, the world has not become appreciably better to live in.
- Assuming rebirth, how then is it possible to suddenly have billions of people living better a 100 years later, given that technology has not improved?
To show that karma and rebirth is true, you have to demonstrate a reasonable way in which the second group will lead much better and more comfortable lives than the first group. Feel free to poke holes in my scenarios, if I've grossly misunderstood some of the concepts.
But let's try not to appeal to the mysterious, and say that these are just things we don't understand. Look at this scenario logically, and tell me how we can explain the contradictions.
This is also not a far-fetched scenario. Science has made our lives substantially better. The Internet, for example, has brought knowledge and empowerment to us in the developed countries, but also people in poor ones. The genetic engineering of crops has enabled us to feed billions of people, many of whom would otherwise starve.
Then coming back to the first question: If you were the supreme ruler, and assuming you only had two options, would you recommend science or Buddhism?
loopholes....
Five billion scientists?
what about five billion doctors? They heal people but no nurses to attend to
500 billion farmers - but they can only do farming
500 billion businessmen and they only care about trade
500 billion hawkers selling food only
500 billion N - the list goes on
can u see what's seriously lacking here....? Science cannot cover everything. Can science make mankind compassionate ? Science can't deal with ethics and human nature...
It is impossible for everyone to dedicate to science, and everyone to dedicate to Buddhism.
But if I can only choose between two, I will choose Buddhism.
Let me tell you... thousands of years of science can never cure suffering. Buddhism can end all sufferings and lead to the attainment of highest permanent bliss.
Not that science is unimportant - it is damn important and without science, diseases can't be cured, and we won't have this Buddhist forum now.
However, on the scheme of things, I prefer to end all suffering now... that is my top priority in life.
End suffering???
Originally posted by sinweiy:"However, the world has not become appreciably better to live in."
actually that's not true. u are just making subjective illusive assumtion. the percentage that u think tested is not enough to make it work. our old Master Chin Kung did a similar experiment on a village in china and the lifes of that particular village became better. it was shown to the World Conference on Religion and Peace. it WILL work if the whole world do it together not just potion by potion.
in Buddhsim, spiritual power cannot defeat karma. science would not defect karma too. new type of dying illness or cancer will still emerge. science cannot stop natural disasters, but if all the world people turn good, it'll stop natural disasters. but it's imposible to proof it now. lol.
/\
1. I would be interested to see that experiment, but I highly doubt Chin Kung will be able to draw a direct causation between Buddhist beliefs and well-being. At the very best, he will be able to find a correlation, given the multiple confounding factors in a real-world situation.
Also, without any advancements in science, how can collective well-being improve? Through what mechanism? Sure -- people will become nicer to each other. But do earthquakes suddenly stop happening? Does H1N1 just decide not to propagate?
2. The reality is that advances in medicine means that the average life expectancy has increased tremendously over the past 2,000 years. The advances in technology means that most of us do not have to engage in dangerous, unfulfilling work, but can instead pursue idle pleasures like such debates.
Do you know that the bubonic plague of the 14th century alone killed as many as 200 million people globally, wiping out perhaps half of Europe? Today, a devastation of that magnitude is unlikely to happen, partly because we have gotten better at finding cures, but also because we have better knowledge of disease prevention.
There is therefore no question that science has made our collective well-being significantly better. It is the discovery and application of science, not because there are more Buddhists practioners building up better karma for themselves and their afterlives.
Enlightenment is really not as hard and rare as you think. People even in this forum are getting enlightened.
Buddha had thousands or tens of thousands of enlightened students in his lifetime alone... there are numberless since his days.
Here is what he said:
"Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return.
"Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return.
"Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return.
"'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding — in other words, the four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said."
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words.
Originally posted by winsomeea:End suffering???
Yeah, that is the whole purpose of Buddhism. End all suffering, afflictions, and clinging. You should know this if you read the Four Noble Truths
Bhutan, the Buddhist nation, has the highest 'gross national happiness' even though they are not as rich or technologically advanced as Singapore. But the people there are happier.
Of course, it is better to be rich and technologically advanced. But that doesn't mean you are happy.
Originally posted by 2009novice:
loopholes....Five billion scientists?
what about five billion doctors? They heal people but no nurses to attend to
500 billion farmers - but they can only do farming
500 billion businessmen and they only care about trade
500 billion hawkers selling food only
500 billion N - the list goes on
can u see what's seriously lacking here....? Science cannot cover everything. Can science make mankind compassionate ? Science can't deal with ethics and human nature...
1. I deliberately chose not to have all 7 billion people work as scientists, because I wanted to counter arguments such as yours. You can still have two billion people for other functions, such as growing food, running companies and so on.
2. In any case, 5 billion is merely a hypothetical number. We can do 1 billion scientists versus 1 billion devouts Buddhists, if you prefer. The question remains: If you could choose 1 billion scientists or 1 billion Buddhists, which choice will bring about greater well-being to the world?
3. Can science make mankind compassionate? Let me ask you a question in return: Which of these men is more likely to elicit a more compassionate response from you?:
All else being equal, are you more likely to help X or Y?
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:Warren Buffet, an atheist, is pledging away the vast majority of his wealth. Read this excerpt, and you'll have a sense of why non-belief in karma can lead to greater empathy and humanity:
Buffett wrote:"My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery. (For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the U.S. were at least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge obstacles that a majority of Americans then faced.) My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well. I've worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate's distribution of long straws is wildly capricious."
As mentioned, a belief in karma is not required for it to work.
How did Warren Buffet got to be so wealthy in the first place? It seems, his circumstances and conditions are extremely favourable that the probabilty of being such is slim. Does his generosity and empathy have a part to play in creating the conditions for such circumstances to manifest?
Assuming that past live is real, could his past incarnations exhibited the same personality trait of generosity? Could his past positive traits created his current conditons of wealth and that his current generosity extends before and beyond this current life ?
Since the truth of Original Purity in Limitless-Oneness can be realized only through practicing and living the selfless way, there has never been a forcing of Buddhist teaching on people, and Buddhists are always tolerant to people of other faiths. Truth needs no follower; people need to humble themselves to learn and benefit from truth. It takes time for people to learn to be humble which is an aspect of selflessness and a sign of wisdom. In tolerance there is both the wisdom of understanding the variance of people and the compassion of embracing even the ignorant and the hostile.
Tolerance in the light of Limitless-Oneness is not an exhibition of cowardice, but a wise choice of how best to invest our very limited and precious time and energy. Instead of inconsequential disputes and fights, we had better devote ourselves to constructive contributions and service. Rather than fighting over worldly interests which nail our minds down to trifles, let us open up to the serenity, warmth and joy of Limitless-Oneness--all beings are one. Tolerance dissolves disputes, brings harmony, and free us from hatred and violence. In the openness of Limitless-Oneness tolerance naturally arises; most of the time intolerance is simply the offspring of narrow-mindedness.
Tolerance does not imply inability to distinguish between right or wrong. Nor does it mean mixing of good and evil. It is born from the awareness that truth cannot be forced on people and ideas that need to be upheld by force are not true. Consequently, the reasonable approach is to live one's life in the light of Limitless-Oneness and to spread the message to all who are interested.
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:Since the truth of Original Purity in Limitless-Oneness can be realized only through practicing and living the selfless way, there has never been a forcing of Buddhist teaching on people, and Buddhists are always tolerant to people of other faiths. Truth needs no follower; people need to humble themselves to learn and benefit from truth. It takes time for people to learn to be humble which is an aspect of selflessness and a sign of wisdom. In tolerance there is both the wisdom of understanding the variance of people and the compassion of embracing even the ignorant and the hostile.
Tolerance in the light of Limitless-Oneness is not an exhibition of cowardice, but a wise choice of how best to invest our very limited and precious time and energy. Instead of inconsequential disputes and fights, we had better devote ourselves to constructive contributions and service. Rather than fighting over worldly interests which nail our minds down to trifles, let us open up to the serenity, warmth and joy of Limitless-Oneness--all beings are one. Tolerance dissolves disputes, brings harmony, and free us from hatred and violence. In the openness of Limitless-Oneness tolerance naturally arises; most of the time intolerance is simply the offspring of narrow-mindedness.
Tolerance does not imply inability to distinguish between right or wrong. Nor does it mean mixing of good and evil. It is born from the awareness that truth cannot be forced on people and ideas that need to be upheld by force are not true. Consequently, the reasonable approach is to live one's life in the light of Limitless-Oneness and to spread the message to all who are interested.
Hi, can you elaborate a little more on this Limitless-Oneness? What actually does it refer to?
Thanks :)
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:1. I would be interested to see that experiment, but I highly doubt Chin Kung will be able to draw a direct causation between Buddhist beliefs and well-being. At the very best, he will be able to find a correlation, given the multiple confounding factors in a real-world situation.
Also, without any advancements in science, how can collective well-being improve? Through what mechanism? Sure -- people will become nicer to each other. But do earthquakes suddenly stop happening? Does H1N1 just decide not to propagate?
2. The reality is that advances in medicine means that the average life expectancy has increased tremendously over the past 2,000 years. The advances in technology means that most of us do not have to engage in dangerous, unfulfilling work, but can instead pursue idle pleasures like such debates.
Do you know that the bubonic plague of the 14th century alone killed as many as 200 million people globally, wiping out perhaps half of Europe? Today, a devastation of that magnitude is unlikely to happen, partly because we have gotten better at finding cures, but also because we have better knowledge of disease prevention.
There is therefore no question that science has made our collective well-being significantly better. It is the discovery and application of science, not because there are more Buddhists practioners building up better karma for themselves and their afterlives.
it don't have to be Buddhist "beliefs", it's pure human ethic at work, a.k.a Truth, Universal law. it does not have to belong solely to Buddhist.
as i wrote, even if the cure advance, newer illness or complication emerges. modern development such as deforestation also bring forth new and stronger diseases(like H1N1) that we never have it before. comparing now and then, seem like not much diff.
/\
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Bhutan, the Buddhist nation, has the highest 'gross national happiness' even though they are not as rich or technologically advanced as Singapore. But the people there are happier.
Of course, it is better to be rich and technologically advanced. But that doesn't mean you are happy.
That's incorrect. Bhutan is known for using a Gross National Happiness as a national goal and index. This does not mean that Bhutan is the happiest country in the world.
In fact, the UN's happiness index has Bhutan at a lowly 141. Norway is ranked first, and is incidentally one of the most atheistic countries in the world.
http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/life/united-nations-announces-world%E2%80%99s-happiest-country-247768
Even in terms of self-reported happiness (aka "subjective well-being"), Nordic and European countries appear to dominate.
In addition, I suspect Bhutan will be ranked even lower if it did not have access to modern medicine and technology. So even here, it is not clear that Buddhism plays a larger role than science in driving well-being.
Originally posted by simpo_:
As mentioned, a belief in karma is not required for it to work.
How did Warren Buffet got to be so wealthy in the first place? It seems, his circumstances and conditions are extremely favourable that the probabilty of being such is slim. Does his generosity and empathy have a part to play in creating the conditions for such circumstances to manifest?
Assuming that past live is real, could his past incarnations exhibited the same personality trait of generosity? Could his past positive traits created his current conditons of wealth and that his current generosity extends before and beyond this current life ?
1. I'm well aware of the argument that if karma/rebirth is true, then a lack of belief makes no difference to its workings. Even if I don't believe in the theory of gravity, I still have to abide by it.
2. Instead, the point I make is that non-belief in karma actually allows greater compassion, all else being equal. When you succeed in life, you don't have a sense of entitlement; you know that you were merely more fortunate than some others.
3. As he himself pointed out, conditions were favorable. However, it is unclear that a higher power needs to be involved here. The odds of winning first prize in the lottery are very long, but almost by definition, someone will win it sooner or later. There is no need to resort to any karmic explanation beyond what is commonly known as "chance".
Originally posted by sinweiy:it don't have to be Buddhist "beliefs", it's pure human ethic at work, a.k.a Truth, Universal law. it does not have to belong solely to Buddhist.
as i wrote, even if the cure advance, newer illness or complication emerges. modern development such as deforestation also bring forth new and stronger diseases(like H1N1) that we never have it before. comparing now and then, seem like not much diff.
/\
I'll give you just one statistic.
Expectancy at birth:
By this one very simple measure, it is clear that collective well-being has improved over the years, thanks to advances in medicine and technology. People suffer from fewer diseases and are living longer, while infant mortality has been greatly reduced.
There is therefore no basis to your argument that "comparing now and then, seem like not much diff".
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:1. I'm well aware of the argument that if karma/rebirth is true, then a lack of belief makes no difference to its workings. Even if I don't believe in the theory of gravity, I still have to abide by it.
2. Instead, the point I make is that non-belief in karma actually allows greater compassion, all else being equal. When you succeed in life, you don't have a sense of entitlement; you know that you were merely more fortunate than some others.
3. As he himself pointed out, conditions were favorable. However, it is unclear that a higher power needs to be involved here. The odds of winning first prize in the lottery are very long, but almost by definition, someone will win it sooner or later. There is no need to resort to any karmic explanation beyond what is commonly known as "chance".
Hi Reasonable atheist,
I didn't intend to discuss this topic with you.
I was using the case of Warren Buffet as a case of possibilty for the general readers on the forum to ponder.
Sorry that I hijacked your thread ..
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:That's incorrect. Bhutan is known for using a Gross National Happiness as a national goal and index. This does not mean that Bhutan is the happiest country in the world.
In fact, the UN's happiness index has Bhutan at a lowly 141. Norway is ranked first, and is incidentally one of the most atheistic countries in the world.
http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/life/united-nations-announces-world%E2%80%99s-happiest-country-247768
Even in terms of self-reported happiness (aka "subjective well-being"), Nordic and European countries appear to dominate.
In addition, I suspect Bhutan will be ranked even lower if it did not have access to modern medicine and technology. So even here, it is not clear that Buddhism plays a larger role than science in driving well-being.
Just did a check... it seems there is no country other than Bhutan using GNH, and UN's index is Human Development Index, not GNH.
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:I'll give you just one statistic.
Expectancy at birth:
- Early 20th century - 31 years.
- Current - 67 years.
By this one very simple measure, it is clear that collective well-being has improved over the years, thanks to advances in medicine and technology. People suffer from fewer diseases and are living longer, while infant mortality has been greatly reduced.
There is therefore no basis to your argument that "comparing now and then, seem like not much diff".
u have to give where it come from, not just anyhow qoute. 31 in 1900 - 2000? hmm..sceptical stat.
Life expectancy variation over time. i explain it as a temporary increase of merit of human. and this is just no including the increase of abortion rate.
if talk about longevity, there are Buddha's disciple living to 160 and 200+ years old.
The Venerable Mahakashyapa is still present in the world. When he left home under the Buddha, he was already one hundred sixty years old. At the time Shakyamuni Buddha had spoken Dharma for forty-nine years in over three hundred Dharma assemblies, Kashyapa was already over two hundred years old.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/149660
2000-3000 years ago should be around 80-100.
/\
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:2. Instead, the point I make is that non-belief in karma actually allows greater compassion, all else being equal. When you succeed in life, you don't have a sense of entitlement; you know that you were merely more fortunate than some others.
allows greater compassion? that's when one is more fortunate? how about those unfortunate ones? they would think, where got equal?
sound like those god religion, where it is god's will, that one 's fortunate or unfortunate.
/\
Actually there is no argument that technology improves standard of living and promotes well being (people rather be living well than starving or dying). However, that doesn't change the fact that none of these have anything to do with awakening and permanent liberation from suffering and mental afflictions, and the attainment of the highest bliss of nirvana, which are all achievable in this life.
In other words both are important to men's well-being, but only dharma leads to the ultimate well-being, freedom, and happiness.
Originally posted by realization:Hi, can you elaborate a little more on this Limitless-Oneness? What actually does it refer to?
Thanks :)
Sorry, i didn't mention but that is a quote, the source is here:
http://www.originalpurity.org/gurulin/efiles/b0/b0072.html
More info at this link too:
http://www.originalpurity.org/gurulin/efiles/b0/b0073.html
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Just did a check... it seems there is no country other than Bhutan using GNH, and UN's index is Human Development Index, not GNH.
Only Bhutan uses the term GNH, but AFAIK its quantitative measurements overlap with the UN's methodology.