Are they still Buddhists without Karma and other fantastics?
-
Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna
Apparently many Buddhists in western countries have discarded Buddhist beliefs like Karma as ridiculous and point to this document as proof (since it has no mention of Karma and all the other fantastic things Buddhists in eastern countries believe.)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana)
The Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna is an important Buddhist Ecumenical statement created in 1967 during the First Congress of the World Buddhist Sangha Council (WBSC), where its founder Secretary-General, the late Venerable Pandita Pimbure Sorata Thera, requested the Ven. Walpola Rahula to present a concise formula for the unification of all the different buddhist traditions. This text was then unanimously approved by the Council.
So how? Are they still Buddhists? -
dude... you think you can edit off the codes like ā before posting or not hah?? quite difficult to read leh.... don't just cut and paste can?
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
Pls see second post: Theravada_and_the_Mahayana
dude... you think you can edit off the codes like [b]ā before posting or not hah?? quite difficult to read leh.... don't just cut and paste can? [/b] -
Whether you believe or not ,Karma still exist .Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Apparently many Buddhists in western countries have discarded Buddhist beliefs like Karma as ridiculous and point to this document as proof (since it has no mention of Karma and all the other fantastic things Buddhists in eastern countries believe.)
So how? Are they still Buddhists?
This is only an isolated case
I have never heard of this Theravada monk speak to the Tibetan Tradition
they still distanced themselves from the Vajrayana
-
Hi Andrew,Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Apparently many Buddhists in western countries have discarded Buddhist beliefs like Karma as ridiculous and point to this document as proof (since it has no mention of Karma and all the other fantastic things Buddhists in eastern countries believe.)
So how? Are they still Buddhists?
There is nothing stated in the wiki link that says that they discard the belief in kamma. It just that it isn't mention in the basic points of unifying the theravada and mahayana traditions.
Is there a specific article that mentions that they discard the belief in kamma or is it a misunderstanding that you have get from this wiki link? -
I don't think the the kamma thingy originates from Buddhism. Like all present day beliefs, a lot of what we know today as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc. have some connections with very very ancient beliefs, gods, norms, customs, practice, rites, etc.
When you do a comparative study of the major religions, you will see similarities. Therefore, the oldest religions will be copied (to some extent) by other subsequent religions. This also explain off-shoots like Protestants, 7th Day Adventist, Jehovah Witnesses (just to mention some), and the different traditions of Buddhism (Mahayana, Theravada, Tibetan, Zen).
Hmm.. the same can be said of my religion - Hahayana. -
From the other thread:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by yamizi:
"You reap what you sowed" is a verse from the Bible (ironically). However the concept of Kamma doesn't work so. Between the cause and effect, there is another factor call the condition. Without the appropriate conditions, the desired effect will not be materialised. So you may sow the seeds in the field, on the rock, on the floor and any other place. But only when all the right conditions come in to compliment that cause, or else that effect will not have happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true. Whether kamma or 'sinner-saviour', it can only be effective as a tool to discourage bad or wrong behaviours only if the effect is immediate. So, for kamma to work, it depends on condition. For sinners, all they need to shampoo themselves is just go to church and accept the Lord.
That's why I don't buy the ideology of both kamma and the saviour thingy. I much prefer this: when you violate, you get a ticket straight-away to answer within 14 days - pay up or go to jail or get rotan or get electrocuted. This is by far the best method of ensuring people behave. For kamma, if you do something bad, you may not get the effect unless certain conditions arise. For saviour ideology - you don't even go to hell for whatever bad things you do if you just get to know Jesus and call him Christ the Saviour! -
Hello People,
I think karma really exist.
Being able to trace the events into past lives, allows me to see the causes of my current conditions and difficulties. For example, I can see who my wife is in a previous life and why she is associated with me in this life. I also know certain people that i encounters in this life and how are they linked to me in previous life.
Sometimes, I really regret being so foolish in the past.
They are really giving me alot of current life obstacles.
I think the precepts laid down by Buddha is a super foresight of his. The precepts can prevent one from getting negative consequences. However I think, at times, karma can also be acrued by being swept by life events and tides. Karma is indeed an extremely complex dynamics.
Just a sharing.
Buddha's wisdom is profound. -
True.Originally posted by longchen:Hello People,
I think karma really exist.
Being able to trace the events into past lives, allows me to see the causes of my current conditions and difficulties. For example, I can see who my wife is in a previous life and why she is associated with me in this life. I also know certain people that i encounters in this life and how are they linked to me in previous life.
Sometimes, I really regret being so foolish in the past. They are really giving me alot of current life obstacles.
I think the precepts laid down by Buddha is a super foresight of his. The precepts can prevent one from getting negative consequences. However I think, at times, karma can also be acrued by being swept by life events and tides. Karma is indeed an extremely complex dynamics.
Just a sharing.
Buddha's wisdom is profound. -
When u violate, u may not get any ticket if noboby sees u violating. The condition is not ripe in this sense, so u may get away with it. BUT u may become brave as u think that u could escape the law all the time , or most of the time, then u may do more n more stupid things untill one day the conditions is ripe for u to be found out n finally be dealt with acoordingly, big time!Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:From the other thread:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by yamizi:
"You reap what you sowed" is a verse from the Bible (ironically). However the concept of Kamma doesn't work so. Between the cause and effect, there is another factor call the condition. Without the appropriate conditions, the desired effect will not be materialised. So you may sow the seeds in the field, on the rock, on the floor and any other place. But only when all the right conditions come in to compliment that cause, or else that effect will not have happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true. Whether kamma or 'sinner-saviour', it can only be effective as a tool to discourage bad or wrong behaviours only if the effect is immediate. So, for kamma to work, it depends on condition. For sinners, all they need to shampoo themselves is just go to church and accept the Lord.
That's why I don't buy the ideology of both kamma and the saviour thingy. I much prefer this: when you violate, you get a ticket straight-away to answer within 14 days - pay up or go to jail or get rotan or get electrocuted. This is by far the best method of ensuring people behave. For kamma, if you do something bad, you may not get the effect unless certain conditions arise. For saviour ideology - you don't even go to hell for whatever bad things you do if you just get to know Jesus and call him Christ the Saviour!
So karma is always there, just a matter of time. The conditions r one of the factors. U got a ticket immediately means ur karmic effects very fast loh.
Got wacked earlier is better, may save more lives. -
Kamma is more of a thought, deed or speech that you have been doing so often that it becomes habitual.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:From the other thread:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by yamizi:
"You reap what you sowed" is a verse from the Bible (ironically). However the concept of Kamma doesn't work so. Between the cause and effect, there is another factor call the condition. Without the appropriate conditions, the desired effect will not be materialised. So you may sow the seeds in the field, on the rock, on the floor and any other place. But only when all the right conditions come in to compliment that cause, or else that effect will not have happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true. Whether kamma or 'sinner-saviour', it can only be effective as a tool to discourage bad or wrong behaviours only if the effect is immediate. So, for kamma to work, it depends on condition. For sinners, all they need to shampoo themselves is just go to church and accept the Lord.
That's why I don't buy the ideology of both kamma and the saviour thingy. I much prefer this: when you violate, you get a ticket straight-away to answer within 14 days - pay up or go to jail or get rotan or get electrocuted. This is by far the best method of ensuring people behave. For kamma, if you do something bad, you may not get the effect unless certain conditions arise. For saviour ideology - you don't even go to hell for whatever bad things you do if you just get to know Jesus and call him Christ the Saviour!
Say a drug abuser, he may get away the first few times but if he carries on doing so, he is still exposing himself to the risk of getting caught. Taking this same analogy, some habits are self-destructive. Say if you are someone with short temper, in the end, I guess that you will end up making many enemies in your social circle.
There are immediate kammic effect and there are some that is not. If you practice so good, probably some bad kammic seed won't even bloom at all.
I believe what Lord Buddha wanted is the sincere and genuine practice that comes from our hearts and minds, not by just fear of bad kammic effect befalling on someone.
That is why Lord Buddha stressed on the now. For we can't undo the kamma that we had done previously or even in our past lives, but what we can alter and make the change is the kamma we do now. -
I think technically as long as you have taken refuge in the 3 treasures: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, you are a Buddhist. But whether you are a 'true Buddhist' (true to Buddhist teachings) or a 'good Buddhist' may be different.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Apparently many Buddhists in western countries have discarded Buddhist beliefs like Karma as ridiculous and point to this document as proof (since it has no mention of Karma and all the other fantastic things Buddhists in eastern countries believe.)
So how? Are they still Buddhists?
The understanding of karma constitutes part of the Right View as one of the 8 fold path towards Enlightenment. The belief in karma and acting according to this understanding will also affect one's spiritual practise. Though karma may sound a little fantastic to some, it is actually very true and its effects and power can be experienced and realised through practise. -
Very true.. thanks for sharing.Originally posted by longchen:Hello People,
I think karma really exist.
Being able to trace the events into past lives, allows me to see the causes of my current conditions and difficulties. For example, I can see who my wife is in a previous life and why she is associated with me in this life. I also know certain people that i encounters in this life and how are they linked to me in previous life.
Sometimes, I really regret being so foolish in the past. They are really giving me alot of current life obstacles.
I think the precepts laid down by Buddha is a super foresight of his. The precepts can prevent one from getting negative consequences. However I think, at times, karma can also be acrued by being swept by life events and tides. Karma is indeed an extremely complex dynamics.
Just a sharing.
Buddha's wisdom is profound.
Maybe you can tell me more during our next meeting -
I linked to wikipedia but wikipedia is talking about the "consensus" of what Buddhism is to both sects that they can agree.
They left out what they could not agree on....
While AEN in various places reminded people that "folk beliefs" must not be confused with Buddhism, the "agreement" raises some interesting questions as to what true Buddhists actually believe.
It raises the question of whether Buddhists or Buddhism continues to cling on to fantastics.
Maybe I should define fantastics as "unproven" things, unproven in the strict proof that the Scientific Method demands; not accepting as "proof", people's testimony. -
Oh BTW, just because they didn't mention it doesn't mean we do not agree on karma. I do not know why they did not mention it.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I linked to wikipedia but wikipedia is talking about the "consensus" of what Buddhism is to both sects that they can agree.
They left out what they could not agree on....
While AEN in various places reminded people that "folk beliefs" must not be confused with Buddhism, the "agreement" raises some interesting questions as to what true Buddhists actually believe.
It raises the question of whether Buddhists or Buddhism continues to cling on to fantastics.
The article is talking about the fundamentals that both Theravada and Mahayana holds to be true.
Karma is definitely one of the very very fundamental teachings of both Theravada and Mahayana, as well as Vajrayana.
There is no true Buddhist sects that does not teach the teachings of Karma. And all Buddhists true to the original teachings of the Buddha and all the realised beings will believe in karma.Maybe I should define fantastics as "unproven" things, unproven in the strict proof that the Scientific Method demands; not accepting as "proof", people's testimony.
And like I have said many times before, Buddhism itself is a scientific method to realise everything that the Buddha has realised, and karma is not fantastic because it can be experienced and realised. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (also see Ken Wilber - Spirituality and the 3 Strands of Deep Science
Ajahn Brahmavamso said in http://www.bswa.org/modules/icontent/index.php?page=105 (excerpt):
Come and See for Yourself
If you had just one person who had been confirmed as medically dead who could describe to the doctors, as soon as they were revived, what had been said, and done during that period of death, wouldn't that be pretty convincing? When I was doing elementary particle physics there was a theory that required for its proof the existence of what was called the 'W' particle. At the cyclotron in Geneva, CERN funded a huge research project, smashing atoms together with an enormous particle accelerator, to try and find one of these 'W' particles. They spent literally hundreds of millions of pounds on this project. They found one, just one 'W' particle. I don't think they have found another since. But once they found one 'W' particle, the researchers involved in that project were given Nobel prizes for physics. They had proved the theory by just finding the one 'W' particle. That's good science. Just one is enough to prove the theory.
When it comes to things we don't like to believe, they call just one experience, one clear factual undeniable experience, an anomaly. Anomaly is a word in science for disconcerting evidence that we can put in the back of a filing cabinet and not look at again, because it's threatens our worldview. It undermines what we want to believe. It is threatening to our dogma. However, an essential part of the scientific method is that theories have to be abandoned in favour of the evidence, in respect of the facts. The point is that the evidence for a mind independent of the brain is there. But once we admit that evidence, and follow the scientific method, then many cherished theories, what we call 'sacred cows' will have to be abandoned.
When we see something that challenges any theory, in science or in religion, we should not ignore the evidence. We have to change the theory to fit the facts. That is what we do in Buddhism. All the Dhamma of the Buddha, everything that he taught, if it does not fit the experience, then we should not accept it. We should not accept the Buddha's words in contradiction of experience. That is clearly stated in the Kālāma Sutta. (AN III, 65) The Buddha said do not believe because it is written in the books, or even if I say it. Don't just believe because it is tradition, or because it sounds right, or because it's comforting to you. Make sure it fits your experience. The existence of mind, independent of the brain, fits experience. The facts are there.
Sometimes, however, we cannot trust the experts. You cannot trust Ajahn Brahm. You cannot trust the scientific journals. Because people are often biased. Buddhism gives you a scientific method for your practice. Buddhism says, do the experiment and find out for your self if what the Buddha said is true or not. Check out your experience. For example, develop the method to test the truth of past lives, rebirth and reincarnation. Don't just believe it with faith, find out for yourself. The Buddha has given a scientific experiment that you can repeat.
Until you understand the law of kamma, which is part of Buddhism, kamma is just a theory. Do you believe that there is a God 'up there' who decides when you can be happy or unhappy? Or is everything that happens to you just chance? Your happiness and your suffering in life, your joy, your pain and disappointments, are they deserved? Are you responsible or is it someone else's fault? Is it mere chance that we are rich or poor? Is it bad luck when we are sick and die at a young age? Why? You can find the true answer for yourself. You can experience the law of kamma through deep meditation. When the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree at Bodhgaya, the two knowledge's he realized just before his Enlightenment were the knowledge from experience of the truth of rebirth, and the knowledge from experience of the Law of kamma. This was not theory, not just more thinking, not something worked out from discussions around the coffee table this was realization from deep experience of the nature of mind. You too can have that same experience.
All religions in the world except Buddhism maintain the existence of a soul. They affirm a real 'self', an 'essence of all being', a 'person', a 'me'. Buddhism says there is no self! Who is right? What is this 'ghost in the machine'? Is it a soul, is it a being, or is it a process? What is it? When the Buddha said that there is no one in here, he never meant that to be just believed, he meant that to be experienced. The Buddha said, as a scientific fact, that there is no 'self'. But like any scientific fact, it has to be experienced each one for themselves, paccattam veditabbo viññūhī. Many of you chant those Pāli words every day. It is basic scientific Buddhism. You have to keep an open mind. You don't believe there is 'no self', you don't believe there is a 'self' both beliefs are dogmatism. Keep an open mind until you complete the experiment. The experiment is the practice of sila, samādhi and pañña, (virtue, meditation and insight). The experiment is Buddhist practice. Do the same experimental procedures that the Buddha did under the Bodhi tree. Repeat it and see if you get the same results. The result is called Enlightenment. -
(continued from the previous post)
Men and women have repeated that experiment many times over the centuries. It is in the laboratory of Buddhist practice that the Enlightened Ones, the Arahants, arise. The Arahants are the ones who have done the experiment and found the result. That's why Buddhism always has been the scientific way. It is the way of finding out for your self the truth of Enlightenment.
Buddhism is also the scientific way of discovering the truth about happiness, what most people are interested in. What is happiness? Some students from our local Islamic school came to visit our monastery a short while ago. I performed a little party trick for them, which was also an illuminating way to demonstrate the existence of the mind. I was trying to explain Buddhism, so I asked them:
"Are you happy? Put your hands up if you are happy now".
At first there was no response. Then one person responded and raised their hand.
"Oh! You're all miserable?" I said "Only one person, come on! Are you happy or not?"
More students put there hands up.
"Okay, all those people who put their hands up saying they are happy, with your index finger can you now point to that happiness? Can you give it coordinates in space?" They couldn't locate that happiness.
It's hard to locate happiness, isn't it? Have you ever been depressed? Next time you are depressed, try to point to that feeling with your index finger! You will find that you cannot locate depression, or happiness, in space. You cannot give it coordinates, because these things reside in the mind, not in the body, not in space. The mind is not located in space. That's why after a person dies, if they become a ghost they can appear all over the world immediately. People sometimes ask me, "How can that happen?" How can a person who dies, say in New York, appear immediately in Perth? It is because the mind is not located in space, that's why. This is why you cannot point to happiness, you cannot point to depression, but they are real. Are you imagining the happiness? Do you imagine the depression? It's real. You all know that. But you cannot locate it in three dimensional space. Happiness, depression, and many other real things, all live in mind-space.
The mind is not in the brain, it's not in the heart. We have seen that you could have no brain but still have a mind. You could take out your heart, and have a bionic heart, or a heart transplant, and you would still be you. This understanding of the mind is why Buddhists have no objection at all to cloning. You want to clone me, go for it! But don't think that if you clone Ajahn Brahm that you'll be able to have one Ajahn Brahm who goes to Singapore this evening, another one who stays in Perth for next Friday night's talk, plus one who can stay in Bodhinyana monastery, one who can go to Sydney, and one who can go to Melbourne. If you clone me, the person who looks like me will be completely different in personality, knowledge, inclination, and everything else. People clone Toyota cars in the same way. They look exactly the same but the performance really depends on the driver inside the car. That's all cloning is, it's just a replicating a body. Sure it looks the same, but is the body all that a person is? Haven't you seen identical twins? Are identical twins the same personality? Have they got the same intelligence? Have they got the identical inclinations? Do they even like the same food? The answer is usually no.
Why do people have this problem about cloning? Clone as much as you want. You are just creating more bodies for streams of consciousness to come into. Those streams of consciousness come from past lives. What's the problem? You would never be able to predict the result. Suppose you took Einstien's brain, extracted some of his DNA, and cloned a new Einstien. He might look the same, but I guarantee he won't be half as clever.
If people want to proceed with stem cell research, which is going to help humanity, then why not? In stem cell research there is no 'being' involved. The 'being' hasn't come in yet. In Buddhism, it is understood that the 'being' descends into the mother's womb at any time from conception until birth. Sometimes it doesn't even go into the womb at all and the foetus is stillborn. The objections to stem cell research are dogmatic, unscientific, and uncompassionate. They're foolish as far as I'm concerned. I think sometimes that I would tear my hair out if I weren't a monk.
If you want to look at the scientific evidence for rebirth, check out Professor Ian Stevenson. He spent his whole life researching rebirth on a solid scientific basis at the University of Virginia.[4] Chester Carlson, the inventor of xerography, (encouraged by his wife) offered funds for an endowed chair at the University to enabled Professor Stevenson to devote himself full-time to such research. If it weren't for the fact that people do not want to believe in rebirth, Dr. Ian Stevenson would be a world famous scientist now. He even spent a couple of years as a visiting fellow of Magdalene College in Oxford, so you can see that this is not just some weird professor; he has all of the credentials of a respected Western academic.
Dr. Stevenson has over 3000 cases on his files. One interesting example was the very clear case of a man who remembered many details from his past life, with no way of gaining that information from any other source. That person died only a few weeks before he was reborn! Which raises the question, for all those months that the foetus was in the womb, who was it? As far as Buddhism is concerned, the mother kept that foetus going with her own stream of consciousness. But when another stream of consciousness entered, then the foetus became the new person. That is one case where the stream of consciousness entered the mother's womb when the foetus was almost fully developed. That can happen. That was understood by Buddhism twenty five centuries ago. If the stream of consciousness doesn't enter the mother's womb, the child is a stillborn. There is a heap of evidence supporting that. -
Similar for karma. There are countless people who have seen for themselves even today the reality of karma and rebirth including many in this forum.Originally posted by cycle:The existence of the 6 Realms is true and factual in samsara. It is not a mere idealogical theory. It has been perceived by many good practitoners in the past. These good practitioners have seen the 6 Realms with their eyes. If these things do not exist, the Buddha will not have talk about them. The Buddha does not need to lie to us.
It is not a good reason to say they do not exist simply because we cannot see them or have not seen them. For example, there is moisture in the air though we cannot see them. Whether we see them or not, there is moisture in the air. Science has yet been able to account for everything in the world.
~ Lati Rinpoche, Interview with Lati Rinpoche, For You Information. -
If you want to go with this person says this and that person said that, let me remind you that the US President claims that GOD speaks to him.
Why is it that you take the words of some people easily but not the words of others?
Regarding the extract you made, see this:
Using a variety of experiments, scientists recently found that they could induce out-of-body experiences in perfectly normal people.
For example: Wearing goggles connected to video cameras placed behind them, one group of subjects regarded their own backs. They saw as if through the eyes of a virtual person. When the experimenter stroked their chests with a stick, simultaneously moving a stick just where the virtual person would be, subjects said they felt as if they were sitting where their eyes were: in other words, behind themselves.
When the experimenter brandished a hammer, pretending to strike the virtual person, the subjects recoiled. They began to sweat; their pulses raced; they became emotional at the vision of themselves being hurt.
In another experiment, people saw images of themselves (again taken from the back) projected onto a screen. Each subject's back was stroked with a stick, while synchronous strokes were projected onto the image. The subjects reported feeling themselves inside the projected image. The same effect was achieved with a cheap mannequin dressed in the same clothes as each subject.
The effect in these experiments was not quite as dramatic as has been reported in "near-death" experiences; these typically involve a sensation of floating above the body. But there was a definite straying off. The sensation of inhabiting our bodies looks a little less solid than we like to think.
Notice that when Scientists makes some claims, they tell you how they do it and how you can get the results for yourself.
Neither George Bush or those people that tell you this and that can tell you how to do it and get the results for yourself.
If you go with, someone said this and someone said that, you are exposing yourself to the very delusions that Buddhism tells people to get rid of.
It surprised me greatly to read that the First Congress of the World Buddhist Sangha Council (WBSC), actually laid down the basic tenets and left out the fantastics. I use to trust what is in ~BWB~ as authoritative because you are good at linking, cutting and pasting, now I am wondering if you have cut and paste wrong things. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
You have completely missed what I am saying.
If you want to go with this person says this and that person said that, let me remind you that the US President claims that GOD speaks to him.
Why is it that you take the words of some people easily but not the words of others?
Regarding the extract you made, see this:
Using a variety of experiments, scientists recently found that they could [b]induce out-of-body experiences in perfectly normal people.
For example: Wearing goggles connected to video cameras placed behind them, one group of subjects regarded their own backs. They saw as if through the eyes of a virtual person. When the experimenter stroked their chests with a stick, simultaneously moving a stick just where the virtual person would be, subjects said they felt as if they were sitting where their eyes were: in other words, behind themselves.
When the experimenter brandished a hammer, pretending to strike the virtual person, the subjects recoiled. They began to sweat; their pulses raced; they became emotional at the vision of themselves being hurt.
In another experiment, people saw images of themselves (again taken from the back) projected onto a screen. Each subject's back was stroked with a stick, while synchronous strokes were projected onto the image. The subjects reported feeling themselves inside the projected image. The same effect was achieved with a cheap mannequin dressed in the same clothes as each subject.
The effect in these experiments was not quite as dramatic as has been reported in "near-death" experiences; these typically involve a sensation of floating above the body. But there was a definite straying off. The sensation of inhabiting our bodies looks a little less solid than we like to think.
Notice that when Scientists makes some claims, they tell you how they do it and how you can get the results for yourself.
Neither George Bush or those people that tell you this and that can tell you how to do it and get the results for yourself.
If you go with, someone said this and someone said that, you are exposing yourself to the very delusions that Buddhism tells people to get rid of.
It surprised me greatly to read that the First Congress of the World Buddhist Sangha Council (WBSC), actually laid down the basic tenets and left out the fantastics. I use to trust what is in ~BWB~ as authoritative because you are good at linking, cutting and pasting, now I am wondering if you have cut and paste wrong things.[/b]
What I am saying is, for people like George Bush, they can't tell you how to do it and get the results for yourself.
As for Buddha, he taught you how to realise everything he realised for himself. Whether the ultimate nature of reality, or rebirth or karma, all can be realised.
Please see the 3 strains of deep spirituality and Ajahn Brahmavamso's article which I posted above.
Sometimes, however, we cannot trust the experts. You cannot trust Ajahn Brahm. You cannot trust the scientific journals. Because people are often biased. Buddhism gives you a scientific method for your practice. Buddhism says, do the experiment and find out for your self if what the Buddha said is true or not. Check out your experience. For example, develop the method to test the truth of past lives, rebirth and reincarnation. Don't just believe it with faith, find out for yourself. The Buddha has given a scientific experiment that you can repeat. -
Definitely not.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:It surprised me greatly to read that the First Congress of the World Buddhist Sangha Council (WBSC), actually laid down the basic tenets and left out the fantastics. I use to trust what is in ~BWB~ as authoritative because you are good at linking, cutting and pasting, now I am wondering if you have cut and paste wrong things.
And by the way, the link you quoted includes karma.
Karma is part of 5 types of conditionings, and is part of the truth Dependent Origination, which is being very clearly shown in the Wikipedia page you gave.
There is no need to put Karma as a separate point because all the five conditionings are already part of Dependent Origination.
All authentic Buddhist sects must accept Dependent Origination/Conditioned Arising, including Karma, in their doctrines. -
People like George Bush tells you that it is belief and Faith. Why can't you accept that but you can accept what some other people tell you? What is the standard, the yardstick, the rule that can be used to make a decision to accept or not to accept?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You have completely missed what I am saying.
What I am saying is, for people like George Bush, they can't tell you how to do it and get the results for yourself.
As for Buddha, he taught you how to realise everything he realised for himself. Whether the ultimate nature of reality, or rebirth or karma, all can be realised.
Please see the 3 strains of deep spirituality and Ajahn Brahmavamso's article which I posted above.
There is such a yardstick and it has worked very well as we can see from the tangible advancements so far. -
I couldn't find it. Which part are you referring to?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Definitely not.
And by the way, the link you quoted includes karma.
Karma is part of 5 types of conditionings, and is part of the truth Dependent Origination, which is being very clearly shown in the Wikipedia page you gave.
There is no need to put Karma as a separate point because all the five conditionings are already part of Dependent Origination.
All authentic Buddhist sects must accept Dependent Origination/Conditioned Arising, including Karma, in their doctrines. -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_MahayanaOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:I couldn't find it. Which part are you referring to?
#
# We accept the universal law of cause and effect taught in the Paṭiccasamuppada (Skt. pratītyasamutpada; Conditioned Genesis or Dependent Origination), and accordingly we accept that everything is relative, interdependent and interrelated and nothing is absolute, permanent and everlasting in this universe. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
That is from the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahayana
[b]#
# We accept the universal law of cause and effect taught in the Paṭiccasamuppada (Skt. pratītyasamutpada; Conditioned Genesis or Dependent Origination), and accordingly we accept that everything is relative, interdependent and interrelated and nothing is absolute, permanent and everlasting in this universe.[/b]
Expansion of the Formula by Ven. Walpola Sri Rahula in 1981.
It was not the original agreement by the council. This is what one person said and not what the council agreed upon.
We KNOW that different people believe different things and that is why the council decided to come up with an Ecumenical statement , and in this Ecumenical statement , there was no mention of the fantastics.