23 Jan, 01:36PM in sunny Singapore!

Recent Posts by BroInChrist

Subscribe to Recent Posts by BroInChrist

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

      hmm, speechless.....chicken came from egg too(we pro cycle and continuum). of course to u all, chicken/god came first. perhaps in a Mind and matter dilemma. the chicken are more mental, while the egg are more mindless like matter. then mind over matter. although mindless is not a bad thing in a sense. i thought of something, but rather keep it.

      the conversation had been misunderstood. i didn't say there's nothing. i say IF there's a "before" in change/existence, there's nothing. i am refuting there's a 'before'. 

      to us we say 相由心生 境隨心轉 things are animated by the thinking mind. maybe the 'matter' body can remain unchange to the naked eye for an advance beings(Buddha/bodhisattvas), but to lower life form, devas included, change/karma is inevitable.  when we see a matter like a rock is unchanging, but in a microscopic sense, it's atoms are changing/vibrating every split second. Buddha already discovered this 2500-3000 yrs ago. even when Buddha see a very still mind, but when zoom into the microscopic of the mind, He saw that each thoughts are not the same, they are continuum. for the rock, the atoms vibrates, while for the mind, thoughts come and go.  there's no complete stillness, hence we reject eternalism.  

      Buddha had expound the 4 Noble truth as anwser. cause and effect of suffering and the cause and effect of true(no mere) happiness. so suffering  is part of the noble truth. i always prefer not-self than no-self. don't fall into nullism, ya. 
      http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
      the not-self and or emptiness doctrine(and so is illusiveness and moderation 空假中) is teaching to shed suffering.  in lay term, don't be selfish, be selfless.

      read this to explain "who or what" is suffering?http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/465175

      /\

       

      Even you conceded that a "Mind" of some sort exists in a beginingless way, so what mind/matter dilemma are you talking about? Anyway, the Bible tells us that God created living things to reproduce after their kind. The answer is given, it contradicts no logic or anything that we know for a fact.

      Before time was created, we do not speak of "before" chronologically, but logically. Thus an eternal God who is timeless created the universe, at the moment of creation, time/space/matter was born. Thus the first three words of the Bible "In the beginning" is a most scientific phrase!

      I doubt that Buddha was talking about atoms back then. Anyway, IMO there is nothing noble about recognising the fact of suffering (no offense intended please). I don't think anyone would deny there is suffering. The issue is whether there is a solution to it, and whether the solution is adequate.

       

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

      1. and 2. understood.

      3. There are many indepth teachings that elucidate emptiness through reasonings. Nagarjuna and many other great masters wrote many books specifically dealing with emptiness. I shall not go too deeply into this.

      4. No... anyway experience arises due to conditions from Budhist POV. Experience is manifestation, and manifestation has its causes and conditions like a fruit has its causes (seed) and conditions (water, sunlight, fertilizers, etc). Every experience pertaining to all six senses (five senses + mind) arises due to causes and conditions. But we do not require a 'Who' to experience, i.e. there is just experience arising (according to conditions) without an experiencer.

      A seed grows into a plant/tree when fed with water and sunlight because this is what it is designed to do. A rock does not grow the same way because it is not a living thing that is designed to grow. In the same way, only living things can have experience provided that such things have consciousness and awareness. A plant have neither. Again the point about nephesh chayah comes into the picture.

      Bottom line is this: You cannot have a painting without a painter, so you cannot have an experience without an experiencer. It's plain logic. Of course you can have something happening (like a storm in a remote island) which no one is experiencing, but then such a case is moot since no one would speak of experiencing a storm he was not in.

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

      fulfillment as in bring into actuality?

      so u all don't reject Judaism? it's the same teaching? why don't say u all are Judish instead?

      Jesus was a pious Jew, yet there were many things taught by the religious leaders which Jesus rejected or criticised. These leaders went beyond the OT and enacted many laws and rules that burdened the people, turning God's law into legalism. The Jews failed to recognise Jesus as the promised Messiah, and many today are still looking for the One to come. They knew the Bible taught a suffering servant and a coming King, but failed to see that Jesus was both. Kind of a fallacy of reasoning that it is either/or but not both/and.

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

      now i see what u mean.

      maybe technically cannot, but with a bit of imagination...


      we do have quite simliar concept of the "image of god". the essence of seeing, listening, feeling and knowing见闻觉知 are the standard functions of the Original mind.

      /\ 

      What you have is squares in circle, still there is distinct square and circle. It still proved my point that it is impossible to have a squared circle. Even your imagination is limited by what is a square and a circle. You cannot conceive of a squared circle. It is a logical impossibility. Just like you cannot be a married bachelor.

      The image of God is "imprinted" in every human being. Which is why it is wrong to take another's person life without authority and right.

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

      Just as there s no eternal soul the is no permanent god or creator. Even though I am with flaws even to the inconsistent care of my dog, it does not judge me, I am shown adoration even I am not perfect! As a simile, my dog shows blind faith in me! It does not require reason to show affection to me!

       

      You said "Just as there s no eternal soul the is no permanent god or creator."

      What is the basis of the above statement, and why do you think it is true? Atheists like Anthony Flew (before his leaving atheism) would have agreed with the above statement.  

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

      So the question rephrased for you BroInChrist is whether the rebelliousness of man is an inherent through faultly creation or is rebelliousness a deliberate inclusion in man's creation. I should have read genesis 3 but don't recall its contents, maybe you would post what you would like to highlight to me?

       

      I think I asked this before. When God finished creating man and woman on Day Six, what did He say? That is was all "Very Good". Can you understand what that means? Not just "good" as in the previous 5 days, but "very good" sia!

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

      I happen to come across this website that refers to the accounts in the bible, perhaps you ike to prove it non existent in the bible or the passages narrated is false! http://listverse.com/2010/10/15/top-10-fieriest-books-in-the-bible/

       

      I wonder what's the point of this link. I do not deny what the Bible records, but I do take issue with the additional unfair and uncalled for comments made by the compiler of the list. He made them in a very disparaging manner using emotive words that reflect his prejudice towards the Bible.

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

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqBMAPAi_0Y

      You guys have got to watch this incredible and passionate teaching by a Buddhist teacher on how to become a better Buddhist, a better Christian and so forth. This teacher is honest, passionate and very practical and yet it is incredibly profound and deep. Please listen to it in full and share what you think about it. 

      I watched it. The good take home point was that many people have used religion as a "give me" thing rather than a "change me" thing. In Christendom this would characterise the Prosperity Gospel preached by some of the big churches.

      I do take issue with the point he made about the main difference between Buddhism and monotheistic religions. He said that monotheistic religions is about accept God and everything is well whereas Buddhism is about taking responsibility for one's actions, implying that in monotheistic religions individual responsibility is shirked.

      I will not comment much on Judaism and Islam, but speak from a Christian point of view. Christianity is about acknowledging that one is a sinner before God just like Buddhism is about recognising that one has a huge karmic debt that requires untold lifetimes to pay. The difference is that Christianity teaches that our sins cannot be atoned by any merit or good works on our part. No amount of good works can cover the sins that we do. God demands absolute holiness and moral perfection because God is perfect and holy. Christianity is about recognising our helplessness and receiving the free gift of eternal life offered by Christ who was sinless and thus qualified to die for us and to take away our sins. If we are to take responsibility for our sins it will mean a one way ticket to hell. The analogy would be that we are all fallen into a deep well and broken our legs and hands and cannot climb out of it. The only way is for someone to come down by a rope to take us up. The Bible does not teach that good works are not needed. The Bible only teach that good works cannot merit salvation, but that good works follow from salvation. A true living faith is one that is expressed in good works. Faith without works is dead.

      The Bible also does not teach that accepting God marks the end of all problems. Had the monk read the Bible he would know that Christ's followers just had a new set of problems! They were persecuted and killed for their belief in Christ. Believers still fall sick and die. Nothing has changed physically except their spiritual standing before God.

      Edited by BroInChrist 30 Jan `13, 10:08AM
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:


      when i say supercede, i mean cannot leave without. maybe the word "supercede" is misused. now i am saying they are together or neither who's first or second, like the egg and chicken dilemma.

      yes before both, there's nothing at all. i am still standing the saying Change as one thought process from one to the next. by that definition, Change is a function of existence of mind beings. if something exist unchanged, then that's Stillness of thought. in fact, in Buddhism we are striving to achieve that, kind of samadhi/level of meditation in order to end change, end suffering, end karma per se. but the question is, is that possible? thoughts will flow endless, but not attached to the continuous thoughts is what can be achieved.  that's as good as ending change, ending samsara per se.

      good change and bad change all lead to dissatisfactory. say eating your favorite food. is good change, but if u keep eating the same food day after day, u will become tired of it. see? good had change bad. bad no need to say is dissatisfactory.

      Example, when hungry, i am experiencing suffering. If one continue to stay hungry for 7 days, one will experience more suffering, not happiness. So suffering is real, and happiness is false.

       

      /\

       

      1. There's really no chicken and egg dilemma. The chicken logically came first.

      2. If there's nothing, then how can something come from nothing?

      3. It does not follow that for there to be an unchanging entity requires there to be complete stillness or no thought.

      4. No one is denying the reality of suffering or happiness. But if there is no self, then who is suffering? Or should we say, like AEN suggested, "what" is suffering?

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


      don't get ur logic, haha. why required? example?

      i think when things are no longer bound by karma or physics, then the mind can work wonders. what ever the mind can think of, anything is possible, mind over matter. it's omnipotent in the making without karma. karma in Buddhism is a very and most powerful law, not even supernatural power,(or deva/gods power or superman power) can overcome it.

      #3 yes, but don't know what u want to refer?

      /\

       

       

      If you can communicate without logic, please demonstrate.

      Can a mind conceive of a squared circle?

      The Bible teaches that in the beginning was the Logos, from which we get the word logic. Logic is simply the way God thinks.

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


      to me, it's more like enhancing and redefining the (some) meaning, as people were already used to the terminology, like karma, rebirth, 6 realms (were already known to yogis, no need Buddha to prove). just like Jesus "redefining" the meaning of Judaism(?).

      /\

      Correction. Jesus did not come to redefine the meaning of Judaism. Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT.

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

      1. Yes. He rejected them and taught in no unexplicit terms that no other systems of teachings lead to liberation. This does not mean he reject the merits of other tenets in a similar tone like Christianity (e.g. all non-Christians will go to hell, or are teachings of demons, etc etc), as he was careful in elucidating the merits of other systems as well, with a big "BUT" - and that "BUT" is that none of those systems actually free oneself from the view and conceit of a 'Self', it is unable to free us from all delusions and grasping. (e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html)

      Basically, we see that the most that non-Buddhists can attain is a rebirth in the non-eternal heavens, be it sensual, or form-jhana or formless-jhana planes. All these are not liberation. That is the Buddhist perspective.

      2. Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions).

      Thus, whatever arises interdependently is vividly clear and luminous, but empty of any *independent* or *inherent* existence.

      Nagarjuna:

      Whatever is dependently co-arisen,
      That is explained to be emptiness.
      That, being a dependent designation,
      Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18)

      Something that is not dependently arisen,
      Such a thing does not exist.
      Therefore a nonempty thing
      Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19)

      3. It can be accepted by inferrential analysis (e.g. sevenfold reasoning of candrakirti), but this does not liberate but forms the basis of right view for the path of practise. Beyond that, one must attain a direct, non-inferrential realization through vipassana/vipasyana or insight meditation.

      4. 'Who' is the wrong question to ask, since that would imply a someone to begin with. Instead you should ask 'with what condition does this conclusion arise?' This is what the Buddha answered to 'Who' questions. Not "who hears" but with what conditions does hearing arise? Not "who suffers" but with what conditions does suffering arise? Etc etc.

      1. Since Buddha rejected all other paths to liberation, it is no less exclusive than Christianity when Jesus declared that He is the Way. Christianity does not reject truths where it is found. All truth is God's truth.

      2. As mentioned, a better term to use would be that the universe and all that is in it is contingent i.e. such things do not exist in and of themselves but have a beginning and thus requires a cause. In short, all contingent beings are dependent upon something else for their existence. However, the difference is that Christianity does not teach that everything is contingent, while Buddhism does. Christianity teaches that you cannot have infinite contingent beings, that there is one necessary being as the logical first uncaused cause, God.

      3. The issue is not whether one accepts the claim that there is no inherent existence, but whether there is good reasons to believe the claim is true. The mere acceptance of a claim does not make it true.

      4. What conditions can only be experienced by the Who, isn't it? If there is no Who then there is no What to experience.

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

      1. By corrections it meant minor issues (e.g. grammar?) probably due to corruptions of transmission. It does not mean altering its contents or meaning.

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

      During the two years that the Council met, the Tipitaka and its allied literature in all scripts were painstakingly examined with their differences noted down, the necessary corrections made, and collated. Not much difference was found in the content of any of the texts.

      Whether it was mere grammar or not, I don't think it can be verified.

      But compare this with the Bible, written less than 60 years of the events that transpired, with more than 24000 extant manuscripts, and textual criticism shows that the texts are almost 99% similar with the rest being shown to be spelling errors or minor copying errors which do not affect any doctrines. Yet we still hear allegations that the Bible has been being changed and rewritten? Wouldn't you agree that such allegations are spurious and stem from ignorance?

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

      They are not exactly apelike. They are more human-like than you think, and are capable of primitive languages, making tools, cooking, hunting, making shelters etc - traits not shared by apes or any other animals.

      The ancestors of homo sapiens:

      (Homo Erectus:)





      http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Five_evidences_of_evolution

      Those are artists' drawings. But what is the actual hard evidence? A piece of tooth or a fragment of bone?

      I submit to you that there is no such thing as an intermediate between ape, apelike creatures, and man. All fossils found are either belonging to ape or man.

      Edited by BroInChrist 29 Jan `13, 3:36PM
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

      1. Whether ignorance preceded enlightenment or not has nothing to do with 'inferiority' or 'superiority'. No ideas where you get that notion. Ignorance is not eternal because it arises due to causes and conditions (i.e. a previous instance of ignorance and defilements), and it can end through the Buddhist path. The mindstream (arising and ceasing and re-arising moment by moment according to causes and conditions) driven by ignorance however is beginningless - beginningless is not the same as eternal.

      2. I didn't mention anything about survival of the fittest. But it is true that laws are enacted based on circumstances.

      3. What has wishing to be free from suffering got anything to do with whether ignorance is beginningless? The fact is people wish to be free from suffering, that's all. And there's a way.

      4. Karma is a natural law and nobody can escape from it even if it takes lifetimes to play out. Just like nobody can escape from cancer or at the very least negative health effects from chain smoking.

      5. In Buddhism, there is no 'things are the way it should be'. There is no 'should' or 'should not'. It is just plain cause and effect - if you touch hot charcoal, there will be pain. And naturally you will want to avoid pain.

      1. If ignorance has been the beginingless state of things, then wouldn't that be the natural state? What's the difference between the term beginingless and eternal? If ignorance arises due to conditions, then ignorance is contingent. But what is it contingent upon? And how can it be contingent yet eternal? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/beginningless

      2. Legal laws are enacted based on circumstances, but stll they are ultimately based on moral laws that are discovered. No human made the law that murder is wrong. No human decided for everyone else that murder is wrong. Murder is considered wrong every where.

      3. If ignorance has been the eternal state, then so has suffering. And since that is the natural law, why go against it?

      4. It is true that nobody can escape from natural laws. So is it impossible to escape from karma and be free of it?

      5. The idea of cause and effect is certainly not unique to Buddhism. Causes have effects, this is not disputed or denied at all. The question is whether adequate causes are identified for certain effects. For example, why do we feel pain? That's because we have nerve cells. Humans therefore are "hardwired" to feel pain and respond physically to external things that hurt us. What accounts for that? To say causes and conditions is not to say much.

       

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

      fyi, what i am saying is, human came from ape is nonsensical.  to what i know from discover channel, science has not found the "missing link" between human and ape. i forgot the number, but how many millions/billions of years ago, human were already walking on two legs. and between the short interval time period, ape cannot possiblity "evolve" into human/homo sapiens, the time is too short. 

      i am not refering to evolution that's related to inter-breeding of species or slight mutation. in Buddhism, the different between human and animal realm is human have morality. 

      if, i mean "if" one day, science can come up with artificial intelligence robots or create "life" from mineral, or the already possible cloning, it doesn't contradict that rebirth of a previous lifeform to the new life could happen in that format instead of womb-birth. 

      /\

        

      I truly agree with you that the notion of men evolving from apes(like) creatures is nonsense. Yet this is taught as fact in schools and in media.

      Yes, humans have morality but animals do not. This would be very consistent with the Bible's teaching that man is made in God's image.

      If humans can create AI or life, it only means that you need intelligence to get life, which again points to intelligent design, not pure natural causes.

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

      Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm:

      Umm, actually Humans evolved from earlier homonids. Apes evolved along different lines than humans, branching off from the hominidea clade. No one who studies paleo-anthropology would say that humans evolved from apes.

      The phyisical form we call "homo sapiens" at present is 100% a product of evolution.

      Evolution is not merely a theory, it is a demonstrable fact that can be empirically reproduced in labs.

      What's the difference between saying that men evolved from apes or from apelike creatures?

      Which part of evolution is demonstrable in the lab?

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

       

      u want me to really say Mind/Dharmakaya/Buddhanature and sentient/unenlightened beings to replace ocean and wave respectively, then u satisfy is it? haha, why can't u relate, my similes?  

      i meant imperfection and perfection come together as a package. both came together at the very same time. within Mind got yin and yang if i may use a different word. in case u bias against imperfection. nothing wrong with yin or yang. nothing wrong with imperfection/ignorance.

      As u simply need imperfection to be perfect. :)

      Perfection/Enlightenment is to Know in Buddhism. ignorance is just not knowing it. 

      i'm sure, ur all also teach that god use certain ways to let "us" learn etc.

      in order for an ore to become gold, u need to undergo intense heat, or "suffering". same as charcoal and diamond.  so again in case u cannot relate to the simile, i say in Buddhism, in order for sentient beings to become Buddhas, they need to learn the truth and undergo practices per se. 

      /\

      1. I beg to differ. Which comes first, truth or error? Counterfeit coins or genuine coins? If there's nothing wrong with ignorance, then why get enlightenment? What's wrong with not knowing then?

      2. But I thought you or someone else said that we were all Buddhas to begin with?

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

       

      Existence precedes(before) change or change supercede all Existence is saying the same thing what.  it is not to say before or after. change is a function of existence. so they should be together. as before change there's absolutly Nothing, even ur god. don't say ur god don't think.   

      evolution is not the change i am refering. the change i am more into is movement of thoughts/action/intention (aka karma in Budhism) vs no movement at all, as i am refering to a mind source...one thought to the next is change...as long as got lifes, there's change, hence karma, hence dissatisfaction/dukkha.

      /\

       

      1. Incorrect, putting the cart before the horse and putting the horse before the cart is two completely different things, I assure you!

      2. If there's absolutely nothing, then it should remain so. No change to speak of. No cause no conditions. Just nothing. Change is not necessarily a function of existence. It is not impossible that something can exists unchanged. In fact, change only applies to contingent beings/entities. Why should thinking be considered change?

      3. There's good change and bad change, so why should change be dissatisfaction?

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


      as in?

      i want to see if it's macroscopically or just microscopically, in Buddhism.

      /\

      As in the end of this present age. As in God would come and destroy evil. As in there will be a judgement of all living and the dead before God. Read Revelation for more details! Akan Datang!

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by 2009novice:

      Thanks for the replies. Glad to see you got all the answers u want in Christianity. Sorry to tell you that it still doesn't seem to complete my questions.

      Man is so sinful yet he does the talking for God... icon_rolleyes.gificon_lol.gif

      btw, wishing you advanced CNY... huat ahh icon_lol.gif

       

      1. If you have more questions I am happy to try to answer them.

      2. God can use sinners for His glory. That's what redemption is all about.

      3. Thanks. A Happy CNY to you and all Chinese folks here too.

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

      @BroInChrist, 

      1. Don't try to convince me. I am not the scholar here. It is the idea of certain intellectuals and bible scholars. For me, it is pretty compelling because when one look at the history of bible, it is written and rewritten so many times, it is not surprising that ideas changed and gets readapted. 

      2. Well, most of what the bible says is inconsistent and many don't even make sense when you read it at face value. What they say about the origin of the bible makes sense because it takes into consideration of archaelogy, history and socio-political developments of the area in which the bible was written. 

      4. Your answer to past life regression is way... way out there. I am sorry but it sounds almost superstitious. 

      Well BroInChrist, thank you for your response. I am not sure what you hope to gain from spreading your word of God to stalwart Buddhist like me. I love Buddhism and after coming into contact with such powerful logic and teachings, I really cannot look back at Christianity without being overly critical. I hope you don't get too offended. Thanks. 

      1. Are you saying that your mind is made up and you refused to be convinced? I don't think that should be the approach to take. One does not need to be a scholar to be convinced. What do you mean by saying that the Bible has been written and rewritten many times? Wouldn't you need to have some kind of basis to make this assertion? On the other hand, perhaps it should be noted that in the most recent Buddhist council held in 1954, there were corrections made to the Buddhist Scriptures. Had such happened for the Bible I am sure the critics would make much of it!

      2. Which parts of the Bible are inconsistent and does not make sense at face value? Better to support such allegations than make sweeping motherhood statements, don't you agree?

      3. Why is my explanation for supposed cases of reincarnation superstitious but not yours?

      4. I am not offended by your views of Christianity. It serves the purpose that wrong views of Christianity can be corrected.

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

      i meant since the mind are inter-linked, there's connection hence "communication"? i do can use the word decernment of the mind. though this need more thinking. u might be refering to the communication with god?  

      there's a VIMALAKIRTI NIRDESA SUTRA where Bodhisattvas/Buddhas "playing" with galaxies, throwing them around, changing them in size etc, if i recall properly. no time to re-read. they are so to speak "advance" beings with advance powers. 

      http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln260/Vimalakirti.htm

      and in Avatamsaka Sutra, it said how a mustard seed can contain the universes and within that universes are yet seeds and within that seeds are universes, on and on without ending.... and how great bodhisattvas can enter them easily. later see science can discover this or not...haha

      ps: i don't wish u think i say that mind is the absolute "being", as to us mind is just a unit in all mental beings, like atom in all matter. like money, it has no feelings, emotion etc of it's own.

      /\

      1. If there's communication then logic is required.

      2. The only thing a mustard seed can contain is what is in its DNA. It can only grow into a mustard tree. Things are made to reproduce after their kind.

      3. Since mind is in all mental beings, therefore mental beings must exist, right?

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

      1) Buddha rejected the tenets of Hinduism, but at the time of Buddha there was no such thing as Hinduism. But the teachings that later form the basis of Hinduism, i.e. Vedas, are rejected by Buddha, and the teachings of eternalism underpinning Hinduism (the notion of Atman/Self and Brahman - God or the Ultimate Reality) is also rejected by Buddha.

      There is a very long and accurate article discussing this: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html

      "
      A paradigm shift cannot and should not be misconstrued as a reformation. Reforms are changes brought about within the same paradigm. Hence, paradigm shifts are changes in the very foundations or parameters. Therefore, the basic foundations of these practices are completely different."



      2. Nirvana is the termination of passion, aggression and delusion. It is the cessation of the deluded way of conceiving things, in terms of inherently existing Self and Objects. Absent of a subject-object dichotomy, there is in seeing just sight but neither is sight objectified, and there is no seer, in hearing just sound without hearer, and sound too is empty, like an echo, etc.

      There is no inherent existence whatsoever.

      Nirvana is not nihilism becuase it is not the cessation of an existent being because no such being could be pinned down to begin with, and for that same reason Nirvana is also not eternalism, but merely the cessation of the deluded way of conceiving, projecting, proliferating, that is the basis of craving.

      1. In other words, Buddha completely rejected Hinduism, right?

      2. If there is no seer, then it is meaningless to talk about seeing anything. If there is no object, then there is no subject to talk about. BTW, an echo is simply sound waves reflecting back. It is real. You cannot have an echo if there was no original sound made.

      3. To say that there is no inherent existence whatsoever is to make a categorical statement about reality. But on what basis should anyone accept this statement as true?

      4. If there is no beings to speak of, then who is having the delusion?

       

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

      well, i say Buddhism was earlier and the texts were more reasonable and saying how it will happen in realistic detail. although, i read of Babel and go into Bible before i became a Buddhist. but now then i am reading that u all use the "frictional" Tower of Babel as excuss to say u all are earlier.   really.. i rather believe in something realistic than some grandma-like story. we no more kids. a large amount of detail vs a general info. general info should be the one that came from the large amount of detail, instead of the other way around.

      /\

      1. Yes, Buddha lived about 500 years before Christ, so in that sense he preceded Christianity. But since Christ was God-incarnate, in that sense Christ preceded Buddha. In fact, the Bible teaches that Christ is the Creator of the universe i.e. God Himself. When was the teachings of Buddha first put into writing? If I am not wrong it was about 500 years after he died. The NT, on the other hand, was written well before the first century ended, less than 60 years after Jesus' resurrection.

      2. On what basis you say the Tower of Babel incident is fiction? How is it not realistic compared to narrate exploits of Buddha? The issue is not about the amount of detail, since one can babble a lot and still be nonsense. The issue is whether the contents supplied is correct and true.