Buddhism as a religion
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
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.
/\
- Life expectancy data is from Wikipedia.
- We talk about average life expectancy as an indicator of well-being. Abortion has no relevance to this argument.
- Believing that someone has been alive for 2,000+ years sums up the "dragon in my garage" scenario. Why is it that there is no scientific evidence of his age whatsoever? Does anybody have photographic evidence that can convincingly present that case? Has his hair/saliva been subjected to DNA testing? More importantly, given that you have no evidence of it beyond hearsay, why do you believe in something so incredible?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
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.
/\
Let me ask you the same question I posed to someone else above:
- X is suffering today. He has done a great deal of evil previously.
- Y is suffering today. He has done nothing wrong, but is merely
a victim of circumstances.
All else being equal, are you more likely to help X or Y?
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
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.
You keep arguing that karma will also lead to increased well-being, but you cannot explain the tangible ways in which well-being will improve in the absence of technology.
The best you can do, I think, is to suggest that natural disasters will simply stop happening, and that illnesses will abate if everyone devotes themselves to Buddhism. In other words, you have to insist on an active role for karma in manipulating and modifying other natural laws. That will lead to a whole host of other problems.
Otherwise, without technology, there is simply no mechanism for well-being to improve to any significant level, even if everyone starts devoting themselves to Buddhism. This alone should suggest that karma's contribution to well-being is extremely limited, if at all present.
-
ummm . . ... . How reasonable is this atheist? A normal human being knows nobody can stop natural disaster.
Another troll, faultfinding TROLL!
-
@reasonable.atheist How is one to ever get ''answers'' lah, when it is premised on logic, on concepts - it is being a squirrel in a cage. Eg Buddha's 8-fold..... was a consequence of his being empty not the other way around.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
You keep arguing that karma will also lead to increased well-being, but you cannot explain the tangible ways in which well-being will improve in the absence of technology.
The best you can do, I think, is to suggest that natural disasters will simply stop happening, and that illnesses will abate if everyone devotes themselves to Buddhism. In other words, you have to insist on an active role for karma in manipulating and modifying other natural laws. That will lead to a whole host of other problems.
Otherwise, without technology, there is simply no mechanism for well-being to improve to any significant level, even if everyone starts devoting themselves to Buddhism. This alone should suggest that karma's contribution to well-being is extremely limited, if at all present.
If humans go against nature, nature will go against us. This is the law of nature (karma). Though today's technology is very advance but humans have gone against nature in many ways to achieve high technology. The end result is natural disasters which are happening every now and then.
Listen to this nice & meaningful rap song below. "We are nothing 四大皆空". This song is trying to tell us that humans claim that we can do wonders with today's technologies but when natural disasters strike us, we then realise we are nothing at all, we are at the mercy of the unknown which is karma.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHhA43L0qxE
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
ummm . . ... . How reasonable is this atheist? A normal human being knows nobody can stop natural disaster.
Another troll, faultfinding TROLL!
If you're not able to follow the debate, I suggest you try to retrace the arguments carefully.
If I were a troll, I would be the most self-defeating troll in the world, given the amount of time and effort I take to research and reply to people here.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
- Life expectancy data is from Wikipedia.
- We talk about average life expectancy as an indicator of well-being. Abortion has no relevance to this argument.
- Believing that someone has been alive for 2,000+ years sums up the "dragon in my garage" scenario. Why is it that there is no scientific evidence of his age whatsoever? Does anybody have photographic evidence that can convincingly present that case? Has his hair/saliva been subjected to DNA testing? More importantly, given that you have no evidence of it beyond hearsay, why do you believe in something so incredible?
it's 200+, not 2000+. and i have even longer one, but it's too unbelievable to say.Abortion mean babies dying before the age of 1. yea, they are not consider as life.
3. it's recorded in scriptures as evidence though.
/\
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Let me ask you the same question I posed to someone else above:
- X is suffering today. He has done a great deal of evil previously.
- Y is suffering today. He has done nothing wrong, but is merely a victim of circumstances.
All else being equal, are you more likely to help X or Y?
don't quite understand the point in the question, hence no one answer. previously as in previous life? karma is more complicated than simple linear approach. previous good deed can still reapen first, when given the right conditions, to someone that's bad and vise verse.seeds + Conditons of sunlight, soil, water = reapen.
no conditions = no reapen.
it's not for us now to worry about the seeds we planted previously. more important is now, don't plant it for the future and stop the conditions of greed, hatred and folly.
we have our more effective way of teaching unconditional compassion/loving kindness toward others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett%C4%81
the aim is non-discrimination. we should help both. u? u only help the victim? don't care about the bad ones?
/\
-
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?
Recommend Buddhism first and then Science.
Science is a double edged sword. After 100 years, there might be proliferation of nuclear arms, outbreak of new viruses created synthetically by rogue scientists/funded by rogue nations etc.
If Buddhism is properly practiced, all 5 billion people's collective karma would improve - there would be less hotspots in the world, no nuclear arms race. Science would be put to good use, not destructive use.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
You keep arguing that karma will also lead to increased well-being, but you cannot explain the tangible ways in which well-being will improve in the absence of technology.
The best you can do, I think, is to suggest that natural disasters will simply stop happening, and that illnesses will abate if everyone devotes themselves to Buddhism. In other words, you have to insist on an active role for karma in manipulating and modifying other natural laws. That will lead to a whole host of other problems.
Otherwise, without technology, there is simply no mechanism for well-being to improve to any significant level, even if everyone starts devoting themselves to Buddhism. This alone should suggest that karma's contribution to well-being is extremely limited, if at all present.
Who talked about karma here? I am talking about awakening and liberation. If awakening and liberation is highly achievable in this life, and furthermore does not require you to become a monk, why not take practice seriously?
-
Originally posted by wl_t:
Recommend Buddhism first and then Science.
Science is a double edged sword. After 100 years, there might be proliferation of nuclear arms, outbreak of new viruses created synthetically by rogue scientists/funded by rogue nations etc.
If Buddhism is properly practiced, all 5 billion people's collective karma would improve - there would be less hotspots in the world, no nuclear arms race. Science would be put to good use, not destructive use.
Thumbs up.
Without wisdom and compassion, science can be misused.
-
Organized religion(s) of any denomination when it is be observed and shared out of one's fullness (within) is not about one man’s belief against another, but that which serves as catalyst by his being ...(fill in what comes to mind, eg loving, divisive, kind or ...) and an opportunity for others to gravitates towards one inner source of being, ie, all are the same at the centre. One was never born a Hindu nor a Christian nor a .... Is there such a thing as Hindu truth or Christian or Buddhist truth? In fact truth as such does not exist. What exists is relatively true and truth is always relative to what is and it is everchanging. One is not born a Chinese or an Indian or a Buddhist or a ... one is *''programmed''/''conditioned'' since one''s birth to be a Chinese or an ... . It is ''ok'' to practice any religion but when it (*) is not transcended one is still unfree! When one is unself conscious (ie, a porous ego) there is a possibility. One is merely stuck with rituals and regurgitating what has been told via books,sutras,priests,pastors. Is there any dignity in being human and yet consigned to servitude?
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Organized religion(s) of any denomination when it is be observed and shared out of one’s fullness (within) is not about one man’s belief against another, but that which serves as catalyst by his being …(fill in what comes to mind, eg loving, divisive, kind or …
and an
opportunity for others to gravitates towards one inner source of
being, ie, all are the same at the centre.One was never born a Hindu nor a Christian nor a …. Is there such a thing as Hindu truth or Christian or Buddhist truth? In fact truth as such does not exist. What exists is relatively true and truth is always relative to what is and it is everchanging. One is not born a Chinese or an Indian or a Buddhist or a … one is ’’programmed’’/’‘conditioned’’ since one’’s birth to be a Chinese or an … . It is ’’ok’’ to practice any religion but when it () is not transcended one is still unfree!
When one is unself conscious (ie, a porous ego) there is a possibility. One is merely stuck with rituals and regurgitating what has been told via books,sutras,priests,pastors. Is there any dignity in being human and yet consigned to servitude?
Do you have a point relevant to our discussion, or is this a stream-of-consciousness thing?
-
Discussion - I dont know if that is what is suppose to transpire or if it is transpiring here. Introspection and stream of ... - a synthesis of both!
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
If humans go against nature, nature will go against us. This is the law of nature (karma). Though today's technology is very advance but humans have gone against nature in many ways to achieve high technology. The end result is natural disasters which are happening every now and then.
Listen to this nice & meaningful rap song below. "We are nothing 四大皆空". This song is trying to tell us that humans claim that we can do wonders with today's technologies but when natural disasters strike us, we then realise we are nothing at all, we are at the mercy of the unknown which is karma.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHhA43L0qxE
I've listed several examples and indicators of how technology has improved lives. The dramatic increase in life expectancy already says a lot.
Now, we may or may not be able to prevent natural disasters in future, but it is clear that we can better predict and protect against them. Here's an article from MIT's Technology Review which talks about the impact of technology is preventing the loss of life during the recent earthquakes:
The earthquake that struck Japan early this morning was the worst seen in that country for over 300 years (with a local magnitude of 8.9). Hundreds have been killed and injured so far, but the loss of life was likely limited by two vital early warning technologies: a new earthquake alert system, and ocean-based tsunami warning system.
(Emphasis mine.)
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/26505/We are not just at the mercy of life's elements. The reality is that we have been able to defeat the vast majority of the world's diseases. We have been able to bring millions of people out of abject poverty with the help of technology. If karma is indeed present in killer viruses, in city fires, in malnutrition, we have been able to defeat it again and again with technology.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
it's 200+, not 2000+. and i have even longer one, but it's too unbelievable to say.Abortion mean babies dying before the age of 1. yea, they are not consider as life.
3. it's recorded in scriptures as evidence though.
/\
The link that you provided talks about someone 2500+ years old.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/149660
I frankly don't know how anyone can accept that someone alive can be 2500+ years old without any real evidence. And no, scripture alone isn't good enough.
-
The fallacy of organized religion cannot be cancelled out - some years ago there was a Iranian (twin baby or conjoined ....) and came here for surgery. All got together to pray for the success of the surgery, sadly, the surgery was a failure - then again all got together to pray for .... An intelligent one would know that this is downrite stupidity! Prayer in any form to any ... is only prayer if it is of gratitude, however, that seems not to be the predicament of many - it is begging for ... a prayer of supplication. There is no dignity and it is .... wars, famine, poverty hunger disease ... preceded one's being born here and when one kicks the bucket - it will still go on. It is has been always the way it is and the only thing that can be attributed (in some instances ) is the abuse and misuse of resources by human beings cos of greed , eg logging or. Hence this adage that the madness of one is insanity and that of the masses is religion that is organized around certain beliefs. Ps - Yes, it is good to have beleifs but it is only good when one is dealing with dead things. The human dimension or the experince of existence (aka existential relevance) necessitates having UNlimiting beliefs!
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
don't quite understand the point in the question, hence no one answer. previously as in previous life? karma is more complicated than simple linear approach. previous good deed can still reapen first, when given the right conditions, to someone that's bad and vise verse.seeds + Conditons of sunlight, soil, water = reapen.
no conditions = no reapen.
it's not for us now to worry about the seeds we planted previously. more important is now, don't plant it for the future and stop the conditions of greed, hatred and folly.
we have our more effective way of teaching unconditional compassion/loving kindness toward others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett%C4%81
the aim is non-discrimination. we should help both. u? u only help the victim? don't care about the bad ones?
/\
It's not a trick question.
Most people would feel more sympathy for the Y, the innocent person. If someone goes to jail for murdering in cold blood, you would feel very little sympathy. However, if the same person goes to jail because he was wrongly accused of murder, you would be more sympathetic.
The perception of "moral responsibility" is important in helping us decide whether to assign blame and accord sympathy.
Buddhism teaches us that everything bad that happens to us is due to karma, and is ultimately due to our wrong-doing. i.e. if we suffer, it's our own fault.
Determinism tells us that free will is an illusion, and that we have no control over the things that happen to us -- both good and bad. i.e. if we suffer, we are a victim of circumstance.
This is my argument for saying that determinism -- which most scientists believe -- results in a more compassionate society. This is also the position that Buffett takes, from what I've read.
-
Originally posted by wl_t:
Recommend Buddhism first and then Science.
Science is a double edged sword. After 100 years, there might be proliferation of nuclear arms, outbreak of new viruses created synthetically by rogue scientists/funded by rogue nations etc.
If Buddhism is properly practiced, all 5 billion people's collective karma would improve - there would be less hotspots in the world, no nuclear arms race. Science would be put to good use, not destructive use.
The scenario is not a choose-and-justify question. It's framed as a dilemma.
- Is substantial increased well-being through positive karma be possible without science? Think of a world where influenza still wipes out millions; countless others die in childbirth; etc.
- Why is it that the world can enjoy substantially improved well-being today through science, given that no substantial increase in positive karma?
- Given these dilemmas, isn't it more reasonable to think that improved well-being comes from science, much more than it comes from karma?
- Is substantial increased well-being through positive karma be possible without science? Think of a world where influenza still wipes out millions; countless others die in childbirth; etc.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
The link that you provided talks about someone 2500+ years old.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/149660
I frankly don't know how anyone can accept that someone alive can be 2500+ years old without any real evidence. And no, scripture alone isn't good enough.
haha, yea, i didn't want to mentioned him(Mahakasyapa). i only mentioning the 200+ one(Kashyapa).
it's good enough for us that Venerable Mahakasyapa's relics/shariras are missing among the top disciples, showing that he really is still alive now.
/\
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
It's not a trick question.
Most people would feel more sympathy for the Y, the innocent person. If someone goes to jail for murdering in cold blood, you would feel very little sympathy. However, if the same person goes to jail because he was wrongly accused of murder, you would be more sympathetic.
The perception of "moral responsibility" is important in helping us decide whether to assign blame and accord sympathy.
Buddhism teaches us that everything bad that happens to us is due to karma, and is ultimately due to our wrong-doing. i.e. if we suffer, it's our own fault.
Determinism tells us that free will is an illusion, and that we have no control over the things that happen to us -- both good and bad. i.e. if we suffer, we are a victim of circumstance.
This is my argument for saying that determinism -- which most scientists believe -- results in a more compassionate society. This is also the position that Buffett takes, from what I've read.
confuse for a moment, i though Determinism is fatalism.
- determinism
- The view that every event has a cause and that everything in the universe is absolutely dependent on and governed by causal laws. Since determinists believe that all events, including human actions, are predetermined, determinism is typically thought to be incompatible with free will.
- fatalism
- The belief that "what will be will be," since all past, present, and future events have already been predetermined by God or another all-powerful force. In religion, this view may be called predestination; it holds that whether our souls go to Heaven or Hell is determined before we are born and is independent of our good deeds.
- free will
- The theory that human beings have freedom of choice or self-determination; that is, that given a situation, a person could have done other than what he did. Philosophers have argued that free will is incompatible with determinism. See also indeterminism.
- indeterminism
- The view that there are events that do not have any cause; many proponents of free will believe that acts of choice are capable of not being determined by any physiological or psychological cause. http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/determin.htm
causal law sound very buddhism "cause and effect" to me.
we are not into fatalism, or that there's no ability in changing things now. i think u are bit confuse in the understanding of buddhism. things happened without a cause, Indeterminism, is not right to us too.
The concept that karma determines the “person’s destiny,” as written in the first and second definitions, gives rise to the idea that karma is fatalism or determinism: do good, and good things will happen to you, do bad, and bad things will follow. This is a highly simplistic view of karma and ultimately not very accurate, for as we know, bad things happen to good people, and vice versa. The idea that we do actions and create effects is also a bit of a misunderstanding: when, for example, are you ever going to have the opportunity to start from a blank slate from which your actions will now have effect your future life? Life is constantly effect, one after another. It may be more accurate to say that Karma is actually the “law of effect and cause,” since we will never make a decision independent of effects that have already been put in motion.
Read more: http://socyberty.com/spirituality/understanding-karma/#ixzz1i1HiJFMZ/\
-
Originally posted by realization:
Without wisdom and compassion, science can be misused.
Double Thumbs up!
/\
-
why can't both co-exist? in different realms of knowledge and experience?
no doubt we are down to matter and excrement, shouldn't there be meanings in life?
excessive scientism would lead to dangerous public policies as much as it has improved our lives in the material ways....religion and morality has a higher plane of responsibility to sustain a peaceful world....
-
absolute scientism is and should not be the only axis of knowledge....
we are dealing with human nature....science cannot control it..