Buddhism as a religion

• wl_t

  30 Dec 11, 23:25

  Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:

  The scenario is not a choose-and-justify question. It's framed as a dilemma.

  1. 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.
     
  2. Why is it that the world can enjoy substantially improved well-being today through science, given that no substantial increase in positive karma?
  3. Given these dilemmas, isn't it more reasonable to think that improved well-being comes from science, much more than it comes from karma?
     

  I don't think it is mutually exclusive.

  Question is how do you know that there is no increase in positive karma? Karma to me means cause and effect. For example, there are many scientists who are compassionate, whose goal is to benefit humanity through their hard work and discoveries. Due to this "cause", they work hard and discover ways to cure diseases. When they discover a cure, this is the end "effect". So you see there is the working of karma in scientific discoveries too!

  The cause being the compassionate thought, and the effect being the cure. So I argue that there is increase in positive karma. This is what is meant by karma.

   

   

• sinweiy

  31 Dec 11, 10:23

  fyi, we are against extremism in that we are rejecting science altogether. 

   

  /\

• Dawnfirstlight

  31 Dec 11, 11:01

  Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:

  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:

  (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.

  No doubt humans have defeated many deadly diseases but there are always new deadly diseases coming up. I believe this will be on going. In the past, humans had defeated deadly diseases like tuberculosis, small pox etc. but there are new deadly diseases like cancer, AIDS etc. we have not found  a total cure yet. I believe after humans have found a cure for cancer and AIDS, there will be more new deadly diseases appear. Why leh?

• sinweiy

  1 Jan 12, 11:32

  ha..no discrimination liao. science got it's teaching purpose. suffering also teach. good is good, bad is also good. all is good. ç�†äº‹æ— ç¢�, äº‹äº‹æ— ç¢� lol 

  /\

• PhdGuy

  2 Jan 12, 10:27

  Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:

  karma is not equal to buddhism/dharma. Don't equate them.  If a person defend karma, he is not defending Buddhism actually.  you can't really attack Buddhism, because Buddhism has attacked itself very well and its final tenets are actually beyond logical attack.  Within us, we have the Madhyamaka school. You can go study that. And if you can better the attacks of those panditas/scholars in that school, then u can try it here.

  Nice. Can I know where you learn Buddhism? Books? Einstein once said

  "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

  Your views on this quotation?

   

• Fugazzi

  2 Jan 12, 16:31

  Talking about ... is still being dogmatic, still mired in theology! As long as it is not an experiential reality for oneself - it is still going round and round! The word love is not love, till one is being loving
• soemt

  2 Jan 12, 16:40

  Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:

  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:

  (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.

  Hi i only read through the past two pages so hope I'm not too out of topic.

  For everyone's benefit i'd like to pin down that the karma being used here is the same as that explained by the Buddha(or close to). Here is an extract explaining it from the site buddhisma2z.com:

  "The doctrine of kamma is probably the most misunderstood of all the Buddha’s teachings. The four most common misunderstandings are these.

  (1) Everything which happens to us is the result of our past kamma. In actual fact, Buddhism recognized at least four other broad causes of why things happen, including because of the operation of natural laws (dhamm niy�ma), biological laws (bīj niy�ma), physical laws (utuniy�ma) and psychological laws (cittaniy�ma,As.854; A.III,62).

  (2) We can never escape from the consequences of our past actions. If this were true then we would be completely determined by our past and be unable to change and attain enlightenment (A.I,249). What Buddhism does teach is that several strong intentional good actions may very well modify or even cancel out a bad action and vice versa (Dhp.173). Thus it is correct to say that we are conditioned by our kamma rather than determined by it.

  (3) Our experiences in the present life are due to what we did in our last life and what we do now will have an effect in the future life. In reality, many of our actions have a result immediately or soon after we have done them, i.e. in the present life (4). The fourth common misunderstanding is what might be called ‘kammic naivety,’ i.e. if you kick a monk in this life you will be reborn with a club foot in your next life, if you swear in this life you will have bad breath in the next life, if you are generous in this life, you will be rich in your next life.

  This, of course, is rather silly. Because kamma is primarily psychological (i.e. intention), its manifestation is primarily psychological. It only affects our physical form and circumstances to the degree that the mind can have an influence on the physical, as, for example, when prolonged worry can cause or aggravate physical illness. The main effect kamma has upon us is how we feel (happy, neutral or unhappy) and which realm we will be reborn into."

• Fugazzi

  2 Jan 12, 18:35

  Wow the conceptualized skyscrapers seems to never end lah
• An Eternal Now

  2 Jan 12, 21:37

  Originally posted by Fugazzi:

  Talking about … is still being dogmatic, still mired in theology! As long as it is not an experiential reality for oneself – it is still going round and round!
  The word love is not love, till one is being loving

  Karma is something that can be experienced. Buddha experienced the 3 knowledges of rebirth, karma, plus the four noble truths in the day of his enlightenment.

  But until we have such direct knowledge ourselves, it is better to take it by faith.

• Fugazzi

  2 Jan 12, 21:44

  When one thinks of a Jesus, a Buddha or a ... and thru isms make it a religious practice, it is a mere thought. At its best it is an expereince of ... both psychological and social relevance is there and its limitations are there. Hence, it is a misunderstanding.. One can practice non-violence, but one will still remains violent, cos one's inner transformation has not happened. The knowledge has never becoming a knowing. Eg One who is greedy can practice sharing, but the greed will remain the same. Even the sharing is adulterated by the greed, cos one cannot practice anything against one's understanding. The parking of the mind no-where arises the understanding, Witthout any practicing on one's part, one starts dropping ..... Not that one drops them, they simply start vanishing.
• Amitayus48

  3 Jan 12, 09:13

  新浪财ç»�讯 2009å¹´12月19日，2009å¤�旦大学EMBA年会在上海å�¬å¼€ä¸ºå­¦å‘˜è®²è§£ä½›æ³•ã€‚

  今天我跟大家结缘这是我�想�到的。在行�的人，在山里行�看�是�的，实际上一点��，到了人多的地方他就实现了。这就是��虚行，�出家人在山里修行是一个人修行�？修行的所得�贡献给大家。那么人家接��接�呢？到了人多的地方，既然就有人�求你，把你的修行贡献出�，就是这个�义。这���虚行。很多的朋�，��得都是学佛的，也许以�没有闻过佛法，也有一些是深入的。什么�佛，佛一开始�佛陀也，到了中国3000年，就把陀也去掉了，��了佛了。其实佛陀也翻译�中文的�，就是觉明。当你觉悟了，当你明白了你就是佛，觉悟什么？明白什么呢？为什么这个世界上寿命有长有短，在世界上有穷有富。有一些人是在�旦大学读书，是高级知识分�，有一些人在农�，�学都没有读书过，知识是�平等的。人本应该是平等的，人人都�以学习。这个��我想大家都明白，本�是平等的，但是实际上有贫�有富�有贵�有贱，为什么会出现这些差别，这就是佛教说的因缘，�说明白一点就是他没有这个善根，所以他接触�到。所以现在�一���，你今生所�就是�生所�的。你今生所�的是因，�得到未�的果，就这样的因果相循。我所知�的很多��都是�贸易的，在�济上有所�就。�就了�如何呢？没有�就的，失败的，并�是说�贸易就赚钱，也有失败的，也有赔的。在你��一些事业的时候，有�有败。在你学习知识的时候，有深有广。但是一些世间上的知识是有�的，处事之间的文化是无�的。我们这些和尚，出家人他所学的文化是无�的。这也是大家没有学习过所�能�解的。

  　　我今年96�了，我从16�出家，我没有读过�学，但是我19�开始讲�。以�就一直�法师了。这个差别从哪里�？没有差别。是�生的因，今生的果。我什么书看过一�，�看第二�了，为什么？这是我�生修�的，��生，无�生修�的，你�生没有修过，你今生就�行了。佛教�讲断�，说我们人死了，你死�了，永远死�了。�相去。把你过去所�的善也好�也好，你的财富，我们�生还�以继续享�。有的�贸易一�顺利就�财了，有的一�就赔了。我有两个弟�，就在广州�深圳，两个弟兄�样�贸易，都�鞋的生�，一个�的很大，�外一个��起�，赔了。�样的，为什么？

  http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20091219/17397127688.shtml

• reasonable.atheist

  4 Jan 12, 13:51

  Originally posted by sinweiy:

  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.

  /\

  I'm not confused about Buddhism's stance on determinism at all. All religions require some level of free will, because it is only right to demand retribution of an individual who freely makes a choice.

  Many atheists and scientists, however, believe that 100% of our decisions and actions are governed by prior causes, such as our genetics and environment.

• sinweiy

  4 Jan 12, 13:58

  again, Buddhism don't "stance" on determinism .

  /\

• reasonable.atheist

  4 Jan 12, 14:08

  Originally posted by wl_t:

  I don't think it is mutually exclusive.

  Question is how do you know that there is no increase in positive karma? Karma to me means cause and effect. For example, there are many scientists who are compassionate, whose goal is to benefit humanity through their hard work and discoveries. Due to this "cause", they work hard and discover ways to cure diseases. When they discover a cure, this is the end "effect". So you see there is the working of karma in scientific discoveries too!

  The cause being the compassionate thought, and the effect being the cure. So I argue that there is increase in positive karma. This is what is meant by karma.

  1. It was Dharmadhatu was wrote earlier to me in this thread: "Buddhism is not about good works. You do not understand the first thing about Buddhism." While scientists can do "good works", these actions pale significantly in comparison to efforts to find enlightenment. Therefore, studying Buddhism should theoretically yield much more greater karma than scientific progress, but the whole point of the dilemmas is that this doesn't seem possible without science.

  2. Some scientists may be motivated by the desire to do something good for humanity, but I suspect the moral issues are very much secondary. When Einstein came up with his theories as a patent clerk, I don't think he was thinking of benefiting mankind, and indeed relativity has been used to both destroy and create. Positive karma doesn't apply here.

  3. Karma as I understand it only applies to yourself and your afterlives. There is debate on whether it applies to a community and your children. Therefore, the discovery of, say, a cure for cancer that benefits the whole world can only be ascribed to science, not to karma.

  4. I think it is questionable logic when someone ascribes a positive outcome (of good works) to karma, and then says nothing about negative outcomes. What about the countless scientists who wanted to benefit mankind but failed to make any meaningful discoveries? Be careful of the fallacies of confirmation bias and non-falsifiability.

• reasonable.atheist

  4 Jan 12, 14:11

  Originally posted by sinweiy:

  again, Buddhism don't "stance" on determinism .

  /\

  You were the one who quoted from Wikipedia a few pages above. Buddhism does have a position on determinism.

  Incorrect understandings of karma in the early sutras

  In Buddhism, karma is not pre-determinism, fatalism or accidentalism, as all these ideas lead to inaction and destroy motivation and human effort. These ideas undermine the important concept that a human being can change for the better no matter what his or her past was, and they are designated as "wrong views" in Buddhism. The Buddha identified three:

  1. Pubbekatahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering, including all future happiness and suffering, arise from previous karma, and human beings can exercise no volition to affect future results (Past-action determinism).
  2. Issaranimmanahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are caused by the directives of a Supreme Being (Theistic determinism).
  3. Ahetu-appaccaya-vaada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are random, having no cause (Indeterminism or Accidentalism).^[26]

  Karma is continually ripening, but it is also continually being generated by present actions, therefore it is possible to exercise free will to shape future karma. P.A. Payutto writes, "the Buddha asserts effort and motivation as the crucial factors in deciding the ethical value of these various teachings on kamma."^[27]

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism

• Dawnfirstlight

  4 Jan 12, 14:23

  Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:

  1. It was Dharmadhatu was wrote earlier to me in this thread: "Buddhism is not about good works. You do not understand the first thing about Buddhism." While scientists can do "good works", these actions pale significantly in comparison to efforts to find enlightenment. Therefore, studying Buddhism should theoretically yield much more greater karma than scientific progress, but the whole point of the dilemmas is that this doesn't seem possible without science.

  2. Some scientists may be motivated by the desire to do something good for humanity, but I suspect the moral issues are very much secondary. When Einstein came up with his theories as a patent clerk, I don't think he was thinking of benefiting mankind, and indeed relativity has been used to both destroy and create. Positive karma doesn't apply here.

  3. Karma as I understand it only applies to yourself and your afterlives. There is debate on whether it applies to a community and your children. Therefore, the discovery of, say, a cure for cancer that benefits the whole world can only be ascribed to science, not to karma.

  4. I think it is questionable logic when someone ascribes a positive outcome (of good works) to karma, and then says nothing about negative outcomes. What about the countless scientists who wanted to benefit mankind but failed to make any meaningful discoveries? Be careful of the fallacies of confirmation bias and non-falsifiability.

  There are many things in this world which cannot be explained scientifically. For example why some are born in the poor families, some are born in the  rich families, some are born smart even though their parents are not so smart etc. If you observe more things around, you will realise that there are many things that Science can't explain. There will definitely be new deadly diseases after scientists find a cure for cancer.

• reasonable.atheist

  4 Jan 12, 14:24

  Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:

  No doubt humans have defeated many deadly diseases but there are always new deadly diseases coming up. I believe this will be on going. In the past, humans had defeated deadly diseases like tuberculosis, small pox etc. but there are new deadly diseases like cancer, AIDS etc. we have not found  a total cure yet. I believe after humans have found a cure for cancer and AIDS, there will be more new deadly diseases appear. Why leh?

  1. There are "new" diseases because viruses can mutate and replicate.

  2. Some old diseases, such as cancer, are more prominent today because people are living longer (hence more time for affliction) and better detection methods

  3. It is however no doubt that our ability to fight and contain new diseases has improved over the years. The likelihood of seeing the kind of casualties we saw in the Black Death and even the Spanish Flu is extremely low.

  You talk about AIDS. 30 million people have died of AIDS-related causes in the 20 years since the start of the epidemic. Do you know how many people died in the Black Death? Almost half of Europe was wiped out in a four-year period, and up to 200 million died in total.

• reasonable.atheist

  4 Jan 12, 14:29

  Originally posted by soemt:

  Hi i only read through the past two pages so hope I'm not too out of topic.

  For everyone's benefit i'd like to pin down that the karma being used here is the same as that explained by the Buddha(or close to). Here is an extract explaining it from the site buddhisma2z.com:

  "The doctrine of kamma is probably the most misunderstood of all the Buddha’s teachings. The four most common misunderstandings are these.

  (1) Everything which happens to us is the result of our past kamma. In actual fact, Buddhism recognized at least four other broad causes of why things happen, including because of the operation of natural laws (dhamm niy�ma), biological laws (bīj niy�ma), physical laws (utuniy�ma) and psychological laws (cittaniy�ma,As.854; A.III,62).

  (2) We can never escape from the consequences of our past actions. If this were true then we would be completely determined by our past and be unable to change and attain enlightenment (A.I,249). What Buddhism does teach is that several strong intentional good actions may very well modify or even cancel out a bad action and vice versa (Dhp.173). Thus it is correct to say that we are conditioned by our kamma rather than determined by it.

  (3) Our experiences in the present life are due to what we did in our last life and what we do now will have an effect in the future life. In reality, many of our actions have a result immediately or soon after we have done them, i.e. in the present life (4). The fourth common misunderstanding is what might be called ‘kammic naivety,’ i.e. if you kick a monk in this life you will be reborn with a club foot in your next life, if you swear in this life you will have bad breath in the next life, if you are generous in this life, you will be rich in your next life.

  This, of course, is rather silly. Because kamma is primarily psychological (i.e. intention), its manifestation is primarily psychological. It only affects our physical form and circumstances to the degree that the mind can have an influence on the physical, as, for example, when prolonged worry can cause or aggravate physical illness. The main effect kamma has upon us is how we feel (happy, neutral or unhappy) and which realm we will be reborn into."

  That's clear to me, except for the fourth point. If karma only affects the mind, does it mean that born physical impairments are not caused by karma?

• sinweiy

  4 Jan 12, 14:29

  Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:

  You were the one who quoted from Wikipedia a few pages above. Buddhism does have a position on determinism.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism

  
  huh? it's Incorrect understandings, that mean does not agree solely on either positions.

  /\

  .

• reasonable.atheist

  4 Jan 12, 14:31

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  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?

  I've always been talking about karma. I'm not sure I want to go into awakening, but why don't you explain to me: What is enlightenment?

• reasonable.atheist

  4 Jan 12, 14:34

  Originally posted by sinweiy:

  
  huh? it's Incorrect understandings, that mean does not agree solely on either positions.

  /\

  .

  Hmm I'm not sure you understand "stance" or "position". It doesn't imply an agreement.

  I can say that I have a position/stance on slavery -- I disagree with it.

• reasonable.atheist

  4 Jan 12, 14:35

  Originally posted by PhdGuy:

  Nice. Can I know where you learn Buddhism? Books? Einstein once said

  "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

  Your views on this quotation?

   

  Not clear Einstein ever said that.

  http://tricycleblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/einsteins-quotes-on-buddhism/

  Name your source, if you have it.

• sinweiy

  4 Jan 12, 14:39

  Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:

  Hmm I'm not sure you understand "stance" or "position". It doesn't imply an agreement.

  I can say that I have a position/stance on slavery -- I disagree with it.

  
  stance: the manner and position in which a person or animal stands .

  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stance

  stand, doesn't imply an agreement? i read it as an agreement. nevermind.

  /\
• Fugazzi

  4 Jan 12, 15:56

  @reasonable.atheist, One who finds out what Buddha was not n will know what Buddha is One who finds out what enlightenment is , finds out what englightenment is One who finds out what one is not, finds out what one is
• Emaho

  6 Jan 12, 23:42

  _/|\_

   

  Develop faith of conviction in karma and its effects. 

   

  Faith is the prerequisite of all good qualities.  It clears away doubts, frees you from ignorance, attachment, craving, and wrong views.   Faith cuts through gloom and clarifies the mind.  It eliminates pride and is the root of respect.   It is the basis of gathering virtue.  Therefore, persons of intelligence, rely on the guidance of faith, for it will deliver you into Buddhahood. 

   

  Virtues will not arise in people who have no faith, just as green sprouts do not grow from seeds scorched by fire.

   

  Strive to cultivate even the subtlest of virtues and eliminate even the subtlest of sins and infractions.  Therefore, solidify the certainty that even the subtlest of virtuous and non-virtuous actions follow you like shadows and produce both great happiness and great suffering. 

   

  Do not scorn even the tiniest sin,

  Thinking that it will do no harm;

  It is through the accumulation of drops of water

  That a great vessel gradually fills.

   

  Do not think that the commission

  Of even a tiny sin will not pursue you.

  Just as a large vessel is filled

  By falling drops of water,

  So too is a fool filled up with sins

  Accumulated a little at a time.

   

  Do not think that the cultivation

  Of even a tiny virtue will not pursue you.

  Just as a large pot is filled

  By falling drops of water,

  So too are the steadfast filled up

  By virtues accumulated a little at a time.

                                                  (The Collection of Indicative Verses)

   

  By accustoming themselves to virtuous and non-virtuous karma

  Humans become habituated to these actions.

  Though you may ignore such matters,

  In other lives, you will experience their effects, like a dream.

  Those who do not train generosity, ethical discipline and the like

  May have good family lineages, good bodies, and health,

  And may have great power or enormous wealth,

  But they will not find happiness in future lives.

  As for those whose family lineage and such are inferior but

  who are not attached to sin

  And who have qualities such as generosity and ethical discipline,

  Their happiness in future lifetimes will grow

  As surely as the monsoons of summer fill up the ocean,

  Once you have become certain that virtuous and non-virtuous karma

  Give rise to happiness and suffering in lives beyond,

  YOU WITHOUT FAITH, DO AS YOU WILL.

                                                  (Garland of Birth Stories)

   

  I concur.