26 May, 08:24AM in sunny Singapore!

Question of Origin

Subscribe to Question of Origin 35 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • Moderator
    sinweiy's Avatar
    4,015 posts since Jun '05
    • http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html

      Q: Interest im the discoveries of modern astrophysics and the "Big bang" theory reveal both a great fascination in the cosmos and a probing interrogation by members of our generation into their origins, their destiny and the meaning of their existence. The "Big bang" theory has had a significant impact on our way of looking at matter and nature; it has introduced considerable conceptual innovations. The formation of the structures of the universe, which function in interdependence, and which new research continues to reveal, is a seemingly endless source of wonder. Like all spiritual traditions, Buddhism conveys a cosmogonic myth. And yet Buddhism rejects the idea of creation. Why?

      Most Western scientists think that life and consciousness are a magnificent result of the universe's material evolution, and yet they know neither how nor why matter emerged in such a way as to fulfill the conditions necessary to engender life and consciousness. What they do know is that these conditions are very strict, yet have nevertheless been fulfilled in our universe in an astonishing way. You have a very different point of view on this subject. Would you therefore speak to us about consciousness in its relation to matter and the universe?

      A: Why is there no creation possible in Buddhism? It has been said that one cannot find living beings at the becoming of the universe for the essential reason that causes have no beginning. If there were a beginning to the universe, there would also have to be a beginning to consciousness. If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly produced consciousness; this would lead to a great many other questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent basis, always, or not exist at all, ever. The fact that a phenomenon exists intermittently proves that it depends on causes and conditions. When all the conditions are met, the phenomenon is produced. When those conditions are absent or incomplete, the phenomenon does not appear. As causes have no beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is therefore not possible.

      Let us now consider a particular phenomenon, a glacier for example: it does indeed have a beginning. How was it created? The outside world appears as a result of the acts of sentient beings who use this world, These acts, or karmas, in turn originate in the intentions and motivations of those beings who have not yet taken control of their minds.

      The "creator of the world," basically, is the mind. In the Sutras, the mind is described as an agent. It is said that consciousness has no beginning, but we must distinguish here between gross consciousness and subtle consciousness. Many gross consciousnesses appear as dependents of the physical aggregates, of the body. This is evident when you consider the different neurons and the functioning of the brain, but just because physical conditions are met does not mean that this is enough to produce a perception. In order for a perception which will have the faculty to reflect and know an object to arise, it must have a consubstantial cause. The fundamental consubstantial cause, of the same substance as its result, will in this case be the subtle consciousness. It is this same consciousness or subtle mind which penetrates the parental cells at the moment of conception. The subtle mind can have no beginning. If it had one, the mind would have to be born of something that is not the mind. According to the Kalacakra Tantra, one would have to return to the particles of space to find the fundamental consubstantial causes of the external physical world as well as of the bodies of sentient beings.

      Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe. During this void, the particles of space subsist, and from these particles the new universe will be formed. It is in these particles of space that we find the fundamental consubstantial cause of the entire physical world. If we wish to describe the formation of the universe and the physical bodies of beings, all we need do is analyse and comprehend the way in which the natural potential of different chemical and other elements constituting that universe was able to take shape from these space particles. It is on the basis of the specific potential of those particles that the structure of this universe and of the bodies of the beings present therein have come about. But from the moment the elements making up the world begin to set off different experiences of suffering and happiness among sentient beings, we must introduce the notion of karma -- that is, positive and negative acts committed and accumulated in the past. It is difficult to determine where the natural expression of the potential of physical elements ends and the effect of karma -- in other words, the result of our past acts -- begins. If you wonder what the relation might be between karma and this external environment formed by natural laws, it is time to explain what karma is.

      Karma means, first of all, action. We distinguish one type of karma which is of a mental nature, a mental factor of volition or intention. There also exist physical and oral karmas. To understand the connection between these physical, oral, or mental karmas and the material world, we must refer to the tantric texts. The Kalacakra Tantra in particular explains that in our bodies there are to be found, at gross, subtle, and extremely subtle levels, the five elements which make up the substance of the external world. It is therefore in this context, I believe, that we must envision the connection between our physical, oral, and mental karmas, and the external elements.

       

      ----------------------------

      i think it is like asking, the origin of you in your dream. inside your dream, there's no origin or first cause of you. you simply pop into the dream because of wandering thoughts(aka thinking too much). when one realised everything is a dream, you will be the Awakened One.

       

      in reply to

      Originally posted by BroInChrist:

      If so, then basically you are saying that all things and beings are eternal since all they do is go through countless rebirths. Yet such a notion is highly problematic!

       

      /\

       

       

      Edited by sinweiy 25 Mar `13, 10:20AM
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html

      Q: Interest im the discoveries of modern astrophysics and the "Big bang" theory reveal both a great fascination in the cosmos and a probing interrogation by members of our generation into their origins, their destiny and the meaning of their existence. The "Big bang" theory has had a significant impact on our way of looking at matter and nature; it has introduced considerable conceptual innovations. The formation of the structures of the universe, which function in interdependence, and which new research continues to reveal, is a seemingly endless source of wonder. Like all spiritual traditions, Buddhism conveys a cosmogonic myth. And yet Buddhism rejects the idea of creation. Why?

      Most Western scientists think that life and consciousness are a magnificent result of the universe's material evolution, and yet they know neither how nor why matter emerged in such a way as to fulfill the conditions necessary to engender life and consciousness. What they do know is that these conditions are very strict, yet have nevertheless been fulfilled in our universe in an astonishing way. You have a very different point of view on this subject. Would you therefore speak to us about consciousness in its relation to matter and the universe?

      A: Why is there no creation possible in Buddhism? It has been said that one cannot find living beings at the becoming of the universe for the essential reason that causes have no beginning. If there were a beginning to the universe, there would also have to be a beginning to consciousness. If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly produced consciousness; this would lead to a great many other questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent basis, always, or not exist at all, ever. The fact that a phenomenon exists intermittently proves that it depends on causes and conditions. When all the conditions are met, the phenomenon is produced. When those conditions are absent or incomplete, the phenomenon does not appear. As causes have no beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is therefore not possible.

      Let us now consider a particular phenomenon, a glacier for example: it does indeed have a beginning. How was it created? The outside world appears as a result of the acts of sentient beings who use this world, These acts, or karmas, in turn originate in the intentions and motivations of those beings who have not yet taken control of their minds.

      The "creator of the world," basically, is the mind. In the Sutras, the mind is described as an agent. It is said that consciousness has no beginning, but we must distinguish here between gross consciousness and subtle consciousness. Many gross consciousnesses appear as dependents of the physical aggregates, of the body. This is evident when you consider the different neurons and the functioning of the brain, but just because physical conditions are met does not mean that this is enough to produce a perception. In order for a perception which will have the faculty to reflect and know an object to arise, it must have a consubstantial cause. The fundamental consubstantial cause, of the same substance as its result, will in this case be the subtle consciousness. It is this same consciousness or subtle mind which penetrates the parental cells at the moment of conception. The subtle mind can have no beginning. If it had one, the mind would have to be born of something that is not the mind. According to the Kalacakra Tantra, one would have to return to the particles of space to find the fundamental consubstantial causes of the external physical world as well as of the bodies of sentient beings.

      Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe. During this void, the particles of space subsist, and from these particles the new universe will be formed. It is in these particles of space that we find the fundamental consubstantial cause of the entire physical world. If we wish to describe the formation of the universe and the physical bodies of beings, all we need do is analyse and comprehend the way in which the natural potential of different chemical and other elements constituting that universe was able to take shape from these space particles. It is on the basis of the specific potential of those particles that the structure of this universe and of the bodies of the beings present therein have come about. But from the moment the elements making up the world begin to set off different experiences of suffering and happiness among sentient beings, we must introduce the notion of karma -- that is, positive and negative acts committed and accumulated in the past. It is difficult to determine where the natural expression of the potential of physical elements ends and the effect of karma -- in other words, the result of our past acts -- begins. If you wonder what the relation might be between karma and this external environment formed by natural laws, it is time to explain what karma is.

      Karma means, first of all, action. We distinguish one type of karma which is of a mental nature, a mental factor of volition or intention. There also exist physical and oral karmas. To understand the connection between these physical, oral, or mental karmas and the material world, we must refer to the tantric texts. The Kalacakra Tantra in particular explains that in our bodies there are to be found, at gross, subtle, and extremely subtle levels, the five elements which make up the substance of the external world. It is therefore in this context, I believe, that we must envision the connection between our physical, oral, and mental karmas, and the external elements.

       

      ----------------------------

      i think it is like asking, the origin of you in your dream. inside your dream, there's no origin or first cause of you. you simply pop into the dream because of wandering thoughts(aka thinking too much). when one realised everything is a dream, you will be the Awakened One.

      /\

       

       

      A number of assertions were made in the above post which were without basis and in fact goes against the facts of what we know. The biggest problem I see is the denial that the universe has a beginning (see http://creation.com/universe-had-a-beginning). It seems that in order to maintain the Buddhist belief the fact and truth of the universe; beginning is being denied. But such denial is not new.

      Down the centuries there have been many attempts to deny this truth. Since the Greek philosopher Aristotle in the 4th century BC, people have put forward the view that the universe is eternal, in order to escape the implication that it had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, it has a Beginner. And if it has a Beginner, then it is dependent, not self-sufficient; and that means we are accountable, not autonomous beings. The persistent attempt by thinkers, philosophers, and scientists down the ages to maintain the eternity of the universe comes from the desire to avoid attributing its origin to God - so that we do not need to acknowledge that God is the proprietor of the universe, or that we are dependent, accountable beings.

      While such denial might still be understandable a couple of centuries before, it cannot now be tenable to hold on to this belief ever since modern science has discovered what has long ago been penned in the first three words of the Bible, "In the beginning....". The question of whether the universe has a beginning is no longer up for dispute, though there is considerable debate on HOW and WHEN the universe began. While I do no subscribe to the Big Bang theory, I believe this theory has been thought up to explain the undeniable fact that the universe did begin. See also http://www.harvardhouse.com/Scientific_Evidence_for_Beginning.htm

       

  • Moderator
    sinweiy's Avatar
    4,015 posts since Jun '05
    • you misunderstood the article. yes there's inclination to denial, but there's also a saying of temporary beginning and a source. temporary "beginning" is also a saying of "beginning".

      "The "creator of the world," basically, is the mind. In the Sutras, the mind is described as an agent. It is said that consciousness has no beginning, but we must distinguish here between gross consciousness and subtle consciousness."

      hence our stance is, both to say have origin is problematic, to say no origin is also problematic.

      and different perspectives different meaning is not ambiguous or doubtful or uncertain of truth, but Clarity and Understanding of truth.

      /\

       

      Edited by sinweiy 25 Mar `13, 11:05AM
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      you misunderstood the article. yes there's inclination to denial, but there's also a saying of temporary beginning and a source. temporary "beginning" is also a saying of "beginning".

      "The "creator of the world," basically, is the mind. In the Sutras, the mind is described as an agent. It is said that consciousness has no beginning, but we must distinguish here between gross consciousness and subtle consciousness."

      hence our stance is, both to say have origin is problematic, to say no origin is also problematic.

      and different perspectives different meaning is not ambiguous or doubtful or uncertain of truth, but Clarity and Understanding of truth.

      /\

      Then clarity of communication would require a definite answer, did the universe begin or not? What is a temporary beginning anyway? It is either begin or not. In what sense is the creator of the world the mind? Whose mind? What mind? What is the properties of this mind that has the ability and power to create the universe or the world?

      Problematic or not, better to face up the facts and say have origin or no origin rather than to straddle the fence and not deal with the apparent difficulties. BTW, to say have origin and no origin at the same time is hardly clarity and understanding of truth. It is still obsfucation.

  • Moderator
    sinweiy's Avatar
    4,015 posts since Jun '05
    • Originally posted by BroInChrist:

      Then clarity of communication would require a definite answer, did the universe begin or not? What is a temporary beginning anyway? It is either begin or not. In what sense is the creator of the world the mind? Whose mind? What mind? What is the properties of this mind that has the ability and power to create the universe or the world?

      Problematic or not, better to face up the facts and say have origin or no origin rather than to straddle the fence and not deal with the apparent difficulties. BTW, to say have origin and no origin at the same time is hardly clarity and understanding of truth. It is still obsfucation.

      erm, do read again the article, the answer by HHDL, IS already the definite answer, BTW. funny i don't know which part u didn't understand?

      did the universe begin or not? 

      "Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe...."

      regarding the mind read from - The "creator of the world," basically, is the mind. In the Sutras, the mind is described as an agent.....all inside the read. i think u only object for the sake of your own stance. 

      no it's not confusing, it's to understand and not be errored into the Hindu concept. the yes and no simple question, i had already answered in our stance if u look back. either yes or no answer, need more following explaination. if not, people will be lead into error understanding of dharma/Buddha. 

      /\ 

      Edited by sinweiy 25 Mar `13, 8:23PM
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      erm, do read again the article, the answer by HHDL, IS already the definite answer, BTW. funny i don't know which part u didn't understand?

      did the universe begin or not? 

      "Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe...."

      regarding the mind read from - The "creator of the world," basically, is the mind. In the Sutras, the mind is described as an agent.....all inside the read. i think u only object for the sake of your own stance. 

      no it's not confusing, it's to understand and not be errored into the Hindu concept. the yes and no simple question, i had already answered in our stance if u look back. either yes or no answer, need more following explaination. if not, people will be lead into error understanding of dharma/Buddha. 

      /\ 

      I did not see a CLEAR and DEFINITE answer.

      Why not you help me out here? Did the universe begin or not? Again the answer is either Yes or No. Please do not let your answer die a death of a thousand qualifications by talking about temporary yeses and permanent yeses.

      Now you talk about FIRST a period of formation. Good. So there is something that happened first. Was it creation ex nihilo? Or from pre-existing matter?

      Re the creator being the mind. What mind? Whose mind? What is the nature of such a mind? A personal being? An impersonal thing? Can this mind think? I no more object for the sake of my own stance than you insisting on it for yours. Let's just examine the ideas put forth on their own merits.

      The complexity that attends to an answer in no way detracts from the simplicity of an answer. By that I mean, even if your answer is a YES, and to explain it in detail is complicated, it will not by virtue of further explanation turn out to be a NO, unless you were mistaken to begin with. If people are misled then the fault lies with your explanation or clarification of the answer. But then again, is it necessarily so that everyone who hears will be misled?

       

  • Moderator
    sinweiy's Avatar
    4,015 posts since Jun '05
    • Originally posted by BroInChrist:

      I did not see a CLEAR and DEFINITE answer.

      Why not you help me out here? Did the universe begin or not? Again the answer is either Yes or No. Please do not let your answer die a death of a thousand qualifications by talking about temporary yeses and permanent yeses.

      Now you talk about FIRST a period of formation. Good. So there is something that happened first. Was it creation ex nihilo? Or from pre-existing matter?

      Re the creator being the mind. What mind? Whose mind? What is the nature of such a mind? A personal being? An impersonal thing? Can this mind think? I no more object for the sake of my own stance than you insisting on it for yours. Let's just examine the ideas put forth on their own merits.

      The complexity that attends to an answer in no way detracts from the simplicity of an answer. By that I mean, even if your answer is a YES, and to explain it in detail is complicated, it will not by virtue of further explanation turn out to be a NO, unless you were mistaken to begin with. If people are misled then the fault lies with your explanation or clarification of the answer. But then again, is it necessarily so that everyone who hears will be misled?

       

      hah, i am like playing comprehension assessment during school days. to me the answer are in the paragraph.

      regarding the cyclic universe, the answer is quote:-

      "Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe. During this void, the particles of space subsist, and from these particles the new universe will be formed. It is in these particles of space that we find the fundamental consubstantial cause of the entire physical world. If we wish to describe the formation of the universe and the physical bodies of beings, all we need do is analyse and comprehend the way in which the natural potential of different chemical and other elements constituting that universe was able to take shape from these space particles. It is on the basis of the specific potential of those particles that the structure of this universe and of the bodies of the beings present therein have come about."

       

      universe is Cyclic in our stance, period.

      the mind is not a personal being, but the mind is described as an Agent. period. simple as that. thanks.

      /\

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      hah, i am like playing comprehension assessment during school days. to me the answer are in the paragraph.

      regarding the cyclic universe, the answer is quote:-

      "Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe. During this void, the particles of space subsist, and from these particles the new universe will be formed. It is in these particles of space that we find the fundamental consubstantial cause of the entire physical world. If we wish to describe the formation of the universe and the physical bodies of beings, all we need do is analyse and comprehend the way in which the natural potential of different chemical and other elements constituting that universe was able to take shape from these space particles. It is on the basis of the specific potential of those particles that the structure of this universe and of the bodies of the beings present therein have come about."

       

      universe is Cyclic in our stance, period.

      the mind is not a personal being, but the mind is described as an Agent. period. simple as that. thanks.

      /\

      But is there good reason to believe that the universe is cyclic?

      Calling the mind an agent does not answer much too. The same questions attends to this agent? What is it? Impersonal or personal? What are its attributes? What can we know about this agent? By what means can we know about this agent?

      For us, the Bible teaches us that the knowledge of God's existence can be seen in the creation. But this information is not sufficient to bring one to a relationship with God. At most it means knowing or believing THAT God exist, it does not bring one to believe IN God. But Christians also believe that God has revealed Himself to us in more specific ways, this through prophets and ultimately through His incarnation. The way we know a person is when that person reveals more of himself to us. The same here with God.

  • Moderator
    sinweiy's Avatar
    4,015 posts since Jun '05
    • Originally posted by BroInChrist:

      But is there good reason to believe that the universe is cyclic?

      Calling the mind an agent does not answer much too. The same questions attends to this agent? What is it? Impersonal or personal? What are its attributes? What can we know about this agent? By what means can we know about this agent?

      For us, the Bible teaches us that the knowledge of God's existence can be seen in the creation. But this information is not sufficient to bring one to a relationship with God. At most it means knowing or believing THAT God exist, it does not bring one to believe IN God. But Christians also believe that God has revealed Himself to us in more specific ways, this through prophets and ultimately through His incarnation. The way we know a person is when that person reveals more of himself to us. The same here with God.

      as change is the only constant. if universe just stopped all at once, then the law of change also does not existed at all.

       

      regarding the the Impersonal mind, the answer is still in the passage:-

      If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly produced consciousness; this would lead to a great many other questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent basis, always, or not exist at all, ever. The fact that a phenomenon exists intermittently proves that it depends on causes and conditions. When all the conditions are met, the phenomenon is produced. When those conditions are absent or incomplete, the phenomenon does not appear. As causes have no beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is therefore not possible.

      when it is an Agent in all of us, sentient being, then it can be attained by ALL.

      in Buddhism, there's also the revealing of Buddhas/bodhisattvas in term of manifestation bodies to teach the dharma and help liberate sentient beings from suffering. imagine a moon's reflected on the water everywhere. the moon is the Buddha, the reflections are the manifestations.

      /\

       

      Edited by sinweiy 27 Mar `13, 8:53AM
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      as change is the only constant. if universe just stopped all at once, then the law of change also does not existed at all.

       

      regarding the the Impersonal mind, the answer is still in the passage:-

      If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly produced consciousness; this would lead to a great many other questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent basis, always, or not exist at all, ever. The fact that a phenomenon exists intermittently proves that it depends on causes and conditions. When all the conditions are met, the phenomenon is produced. When those conditions are absent or incomplete, the phenomenon does not appear. As causes have no beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is therefore not possible.

      when it is an Agent in all of us, sentient being, then it can be attained by ALL.

      in Buddhism, there's also the revealing of Buddhas/bodhisattvas in term of manifestation bodies to teach the dharma and help liberate sentient beings from suffering. imagine a moon's reflected on the water everywhere. the moon is the Buddha, the reflections are the manifestations.

      /\

       

      Constant change is an oxymoron. Anyway, just because we observe changes around us, it does not mean that everything changes. Things that are contingent changes. But God does not change, He is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. The issue is not the universe stopping, but that it began. It began because God decided to cause it to exist. Conditions can exist, it can even have necessary conditions, but they are not sufficient to cause anything. You need a Mind to cause anything to take shape or exist. All events have causes because they have a beginning. But God does not require a cause because God is eternal. God is the only cause who has no beginning. Thus creation is possible because there is a Creator.

      A reflection is but a mirror of that which is being reflected. And reflections are caused by changes in direction of wavelengths of light. The moon really exists even if there is no reflection on the water.

  • Moderator
    sinweiy's Avatar
    4,015 posts since Jun '05
    • Originally posted by BroInChrist:

      Constant change is an oxymoron. Anyway, just because we observe changes around us, it does not mean that everything changes. Things that are contingent changes. But God does not change, He is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. The issue is not the universe stopping, but that it began. It began because God decided to cause it to exist. Conditions can exist, it can even have necessary conditions, but they are not sufficient to cause anything. You need a Mind to cause anything to take shape or exist. All events have causes because they have a beginning. But God does not require a cause because God is eternal. God is the only cause who has no beginning. Thus creation is possible because there is a Creator.

      A reflection is but a mirror of that which is being reflected. And reflections are caused by changes in direction of wavelengths of light. The moon really exists even if there is no reflection on the water.

      all i can say is, to us, IT neither change non do not change. to say a word of it is misinterpreting IT. creation is prefect when it never stop creating. if creation had a start and simple just end like that, makes it less interesting per se.

      /\

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:

      all i can say is, to us, IT neither change non do not change. to say a word of it is misinterpreting IT. creation is prefect when it never stop creating. if creation had a start and simple just end like that, makes it less interesting per se.

      /\

      Again the answer you gave violates the law of the excluded middle. It makes communication difficult if not impossible because the answer refuses to nail down the answer.

      Whether the answer is interesting or not is a matter of subjectivity. The issue is whether the answer makes sense and corresponds to reality.

  • Moderator
    sinweiy's Avatar
    4,015 posts since Jun '05
    • Originally posted by BroInChrist:

      Again the answer you gave violates the law of the excluded middle. It makes communication difficult if not impossible because the answer refuses to nail down the answer.

      Whether the answer is interesting or not is a matter of subjectivity. The issue is whether the answer makes sense and corresponds to reality.


      that makes Buddhism flexible and not rigid/extremist. possibilities are infinite. and ironically, middle way Is the enlightenment nature of Buddhism.

      When the Buddha renounced his princely world he became an Ascetic.

      He lived on very little food and his body became skeletal. He was very severe in his methods. He tried various forms of asceticism but still he failed to accomplish his goal.

      Eventually he realised that his approach was wrong he determined that the best path was one of moderation... A middle-way between indulgence and abstinence. He is said to have drawn a metaphor between the way we think and act and a bow string on a musical instrument. If a bow string is too taught it will snap when played; if it is too loose it will produce an inferior tone. Likewise, said the Buddha, we should walk the middle path to achieve optimum results.

      It was at this stage when he followed "The Middle Way" he reached Enlightenment whilst Meditating under a Bodi tree.

      it's also the wisdom on how one should live his/her life. that's the reality.

      /\

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:


      that makes Buddhism flexible and not rigid/extremist. possibilities are infinite. and ironically, middle way Is the enlightenment nature of Buddhism.

      When the Buddha renounced his princely world he became an Ascetic.

      He lived on very little food and his body became skeletal. He was very severe in his methods. He tried various forms of asceticism but still he failed to accomplish his goal.

      Eventually he realised that his approach was wrong he determined that the best path was one of moderation... A middle-way between indulgence and abstinence. He is said to have drawn a metaphor between the way we think and act and a bow string on a musical instrument. If a bow string is too taught it will snap when played; if it is too loose it will produce an inferior tone. Likewise, said the Buddha, we should walk the middle path to achieve optimum results.

      It was at this stage when he followed "The Middle Way" he reached Enlightenment whilst Meditating under a Bodi tree.

      it's also the wisdom on how one should live his/her life. that's the reality.

      /\

      On the contrary, I think it makes Buddhism impervious to being faulted! If you refuse to give a clear definite answer, then any answer will do. I am sure if Christians give you this type of answer you will find fault. For example, do all nonbelievers go to hell? Well, I won't say yes and I won't say no. Go figure! Pardon me for saying this but this sounds more the evasive way than the enlightened way. It's like always giving yourself the escape door.

      The problem with indulgence and ascetism is not just because they are extremes, but because there is simply no basis to think that these are the ways out of suffering. When Jesus was on earth He ate with sinners (and was faulted for that by the hypocritical religious leaders) and He also fasted and prayed. In other words, there is a time for everything. So it is not about right, left or middle way. But that there is a time for everything. There is a time to fast and there is a time to feast.

       

       

  • Moderator
    sinweiy's Avatar
    4,015 posts since Jun '05
    • Originally posted by BroInChrist:

      On the contrary, I think it makes Buddhism impervious to being faulted! If you refuse to give a clear definite answer, then any answer will do. I am sure if Christians give you this type of answer you will find fault. For example, do all nonbelievers go to hell? Well, I won't say yes and I won't say no. Go figure! Pardon me for saying this but this sounds more the evasive way than the enlightened way. It's like always giving yourself the escape door.

      The problem with indulgence and ascetism is not just because they are extremes, but because there is simply no basis to think that these are the ways out of suffering. When Jesus was on earth He ate with sinners (and was faulted for that by the hypocritical religious leaders) and He also fasted and prayed. In other words, there is a time for everything. So it is not about right, left or middle way. But that there is a time for everything. There is a time to fast and there is a time to feast.

      ok last one.

      yes, we do have a yes and no answer, but it is due to different perspectives or angle.  
      we do not normally tell people to go figure. there IS a clear definite answer depending on which angle u are looking. like the question is there a creator/god which i already given the different angle of looking.

      just like ur perspective now and mine are of different angle of looking. u may say one see the cup half full, while the other see it half empty.

      /\

      Edited by sinweiy 05 Apr `13, 4:09PM
  • despondent's Avatar
    2,223 posts since Feb '06
    • hello everyone,

      this post is a sidetrack cos i need to ask sinweiy regarding sth which seems to have buddhist origins. Sinweiy do u know abt this ''religion'' Tao Jiao? also is it related to buddhism? Thanks

  • Moderator
    sinweiy's Avatar
    4,015 posts since Jun '05
    • Originally posted by despondent:

      hello everyone,

      this post is a sidetrack cos i need to ask sinweiy regarding sth which seems to have buddhist origins. Sinweiy do u know abt this ''religion'' Tao Jiao? also is it related to buddhism? Thanks


      u mean Taoism. is quite well known what. no not really related.

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

      \

      Edited by sinweiy 05 Apr `13, 8:46PM
  • despondent's Avatar
    2,223 posts since Feb '06
    • not exactly sinweiy...its not taoism...i dunno how to explain...sth to do wif a jade emperor who has several disciples, amongst them are buddha, jesus, allah...

    • in fact they dun even call themselves a ''religion''...they claim to be above all religions...

  • Moderator
    sinweiy's Avatar
    4,015 posts since Jun '05
  • despondent's Avatar
    2,223 posts since Feb '06
    • yes i tink tats the one...they believe in reincarnation and karma too so i was wondering if its an offshoot from buddhism or sth...

  • Moderator
    sinweiy's Avatar
    4,015 posts since Jun '05
  • Moderator
    An Eternal Now's Avatar
    17,258 posts since Sep '04
  • Moderator
    sinweiy's Avatar
    4,015 posts since Jun '05
    • i met one before. they are into very strict vegetarian and u need to go to their master to open a "gatedoor" in your crown so that when u die, ur soul can leave the "door" and go to their highest heaven. something like that.

       

  • despondent's Avatar
    2,223 posts since Feb '06
    • AEN,

      could u explain why u said they are a cult? Did they defect from buddhism or have no connection wif buddhism at all? thanks

Please Login or Signup to reply.