I am asking you to think those questions because you seem like a person quick to judge.... I basically do not agree with the answer you have posted above but then so what? who am I right?Originally posted by paperflower:in relationship there are activities which has nice good ones & bad unpleasant ones. be it in relationship or any activities involved in daily life, when the self is not at peace, calm and cleared, nothing beneficial can genuinely be accomplished.
cause & effect can be over a time frame of NOW or later on. you could do some "obvious" experiments yourself to personally learn about this cause & effects. whether the effect is immediate or later on, it is still an effect from a cause which is always evolving.... and it is not something ultimate we expecting but it is the nature of it when time ripens.
as for taming.... i'm sure by now you should be able to understand how to go about doing that if you start practicing. a child, like all of us need guidances and it is possible for anyone to be tamed in the most chaotic sufferings. thats when you use wisdom method to apply the teachings, someone there patiently guiding.... and where does all these come from? ... the mind.
and yes the child is possible to become tamed if you stop him/her from suffering. but it is not you stopped his/her suffering, it is you guided him/her to stop the suffering which he/she has to do it personally, even a child. and it is possible. there are many strong willed-power people around even in children too which i personally witness myself and went through when i was a kid. (it is not entirely about "stop" immediately but to ligthen and gradually disassociate and free from sufferings).
when a child is not tamed even when not in sufferings it is just like our mind still wandering about wildly and coming to many thoughts of action. so guidance is needed to consistently remind and train this mind. a parent, a teacher, a friend or someone reliable is important for such support and most importantly for a mature mind is still the oneself.
Originally posted by casino_king:I am asking you to think those questions because you seem like a person quick to judge.... I basically do not agree with the answer you have posted above but then so what? who am I right?
I thought you might say that. Cheers.Originally posted by paperflower:likewise same for me - i do not care if you read them or agree with them entirely.
"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity"Of course, Science is beginning to discover more in the fields of Quantum Physics - if you come across The Universe in a Single Atom by Dalai Lama, you may wish to get it. On the other hand, a person who tries the 'Buddhist Scientific Method' that is the Meditative way, will surely get the same results as the Buddha, the enlightened one. After all uncountable ppl in the world had already tried and done that.
-- Albert Einstein [1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which is based on experience, which refuses dogmatism. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be BuddhismÂ…"
-- Albert Einstein
Originally posted by casino_king:got to look at the mirror, who's the one giving the excuses of not investigating the 'scientific' claims.
This is what I mean by having lots of excuses.
When I say "evidence" and i say "scientific" of course I do not mean any old "evidence" and any so called "scientific" will do.Originally posted by sinweiy:got to look at the mirror, who's the one giving the excuses of not investigating the 'scientific' claims.
/\
pls, to protect other religions, i think only Buddhists & maybe hinduism say possible, that it's part of human ability to see past lifes, telescopic sighting, phonic hearing, read other's mind, to name a few...but never have we said we need them as it will directly obstruct one's spiritual progress.Originally posted by casino_king:If you stick with pirituality on a personal basis... there is no problem. Religious people tends to go overboard and encroach on physics... ability to fly around with your legs crossed.... walk on water.... but fail to provide any evidence of that.
I am really tired of contributing on this... why don't you go back and read all those sites you gave me and see where it encroaches on physics and remove it when there are no evidence to support it.
What you are left with will be the essence of waht you are believing that might make an iota of sense... you will then have a better understanding of yourself and your religion and what it is that you are trying to do by suscribing to your religion. It is pointless to tell me that yours is not a religion.... just do as I suggest and you will advance to a higher level.
this is judging the book by it's cover is yet another excuse.Originally posted by casino_king:When I say "evidence" and i say "scientific" of course I do not mean any old "evidence" and any so called "scientific" will do.
If it is anything less than the universally accepted standard then anybody came come up and make any claims.... does not matter how interesting the claims are, you just cannot accept it. Matrix the movie is pretty interesting... Back to the future is pretty interesting... John Travolta's Angel is pretty interesting...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Originally posted by sinweiy:You are making unsubstatiated claims here... I am not saying that you are lying or that it is not true... but when you do not not have the evidence to back it up then you must not make such claims... it goes straight to the credibility of the religion.
pls, to protect other religions, i think only Buddhists & maybe hinduism say possible, that it's part of human ability to see past lifes, telescopic sighting, phonic hearing, read other's mind, to name a few...but never have we said we need them as it will directly obstruct one's spiritual progress.
[b] such evidence only apply for scientists and world's people not for Buddhism.
/\
[/b]
Originally posted by casino_king:no it wouldn't, as we already stressed that Buddha never encourage them, as it will jeopardize our spiritual progress. and since our 'technology' is no there yet. better still that we can concentrate on the progression itself. got evidence is of coz better, but it's no necessary. keep that in mind.
You are making unsubstatiated claims here... I am not saying that you are lying or that it is not true... but when you do not not have the evidence to back it up then you must not make such claims... it goes straight to the credibility of the religion.
OK let's say we accept that all these fantastic calims play very little part in "real" Buddhist traditions and all those rituals and chantings by Buddhist monks at funerals are just for fun...... so what do we have? Can you summerise it for us?Originally posted by sinweiy:no it wouldn't, as we already stressed that Buddha never encourage them, as it will jeopardize our spiritual progress. and since our 'technology' is no there yet. better still that we can concentrate on the progression itself. got evidence is of coz better, but it's no necessary. keep that in mind.
/\
(Modern) Scientific Method has worked really well in advancing human knowledge over the years... You claim that Buddhism is "scientific" well none of the modern advancement in science and technology and none of the advancement in medicine came from Buddhism, if I am not wrong.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:The methods used to gain insights in the spiritual world is not by what we understand as (Modern) Scientific Method, because our mundane world's knowledge of the Science does NOT include dealing with spirituality - but of the material world. The Scientists know little about the nature of consciousness, so little that they can neither refute nor assert anything regarding it. So far they have not disproven anything taught by Buddha. The studies done have positive results. In fact I have already given you quite a couple of URLs in the previous post - have you read them?
Originally posted by casino_king:that's not knowing the significant of rituals and chantings , hence judge the book by the cover saying it's 'for fun'.
.. and all those rituals and chantings by Buddhist monks at funerals are just for fun...... so what do we have? Can you summerise it for us?
You just confirmed that it is for "fun" isn't it? No significance, just for "show" to attract people.Originally posted by sinweiy:that's not knowing the significant of rituals and chantings , hence judge the book by the cover saying it's 'for fun'.
Might want to ask our president S. R. Nathan, who once said to my master that he like one think about Buddhism. It's emphasizing on the significance(good person) than on the apparent (ritual).
/\
alamak? this is a forum is it not? or am I wrong? is this some sort of newspaper? or is this a place for discussion? or is this a place to discuss only about sex? please lah this is a forum for people discuss issues that they are interested in.... I am interested in religion... not just Buddhism.Originally posted by justdoit77:Hi casino king,
I been wondering why you don't believe in the buddhism teaching and at the same time keep coming in to ask people giving you evidence.
Is it because you begin to have doubt on the old thinking that you been having? and hence come to buddhism forum expecting people to tell you "yeah, yeah buddhism is not right"
There are really a lot of article, documentary about karma, reincarnation even newspaper photos of meditators who float in the air.
If you are after the phsychic power, I think you can forget it.
But if you want some info so that you can fully believe in buddhism, you really have to go and google it yourself. especially look for those articles by western scientist on why they turn buddhism.
The forummers here already tell you so much, I even doubt if their compassion to you is worth it.
Originally posted by casino_king:see judge the book by cover again.
You just confirmed that it is for "fun" isn't it? No significance, just for "show" to attract people.
8. Right Meditationit's best that youngster nowaday do Meditation, than cause a lot of troubles outside.
Meditation means the gradual process of training the mind to focus on a single object and to remain fixed upon the object without wavering. The constant practice of meditation helps one to develop a calm and concentrated mind and help to prepare one for the attainment of Wisdom and Enlightenment ultimately.
I would think that meditation is helpful as there is research done on meditation and found that it helps the human mind.Originally posted by sinweiy:it's best that youngster nowaday do Meditation, than cause a lot of troubles outside.
keep them occupy is one advantage.
/\
Originally posted by casino_king:I had - in the previous topic. A buddhist does not however, dwell on such things.
[b]If you stick with pirituality on a personal basis... there is no problem. Religious people tends to go overboard and encroach on physics... ability to fly around with your legs crossed.... walk on water.... but fail to provide any evidence of that.
When you are talking about levitating, you are talking about how gravity does not apply. It is not a question of assumption or logic.To which I replied:
When i said that scientist are beginning to find meditation interesting and beneficial, I and the scientists are not talking about levitating. They are just pointing out that if you learn to concentrate your mind through practising mediation, you will improve your ability to concentrate and that is beneficial for learning and to do many types of work.
You said that paranormal activities are not importamnt to Buddhist teachings. I am of the opinion that if Buddhist can have the illusion that they can levitate through meditation, how much of Buddhist teachings are then based on such illusions?
While I admire Christian teachings I ask myself that if they can believe in God and heaven and hell; how much of Christian teaching is nonsense?
As I said, there cannot be 'universally accepted standards' especially when dealing with fields of Spirituality.Originally posted by casino_king:When I say "evidence" and i say "scientific" of course I do not mean any old "evidence" and any so called "scientific" will do.
If it is anything less than the universally accepted standard then anybody came come up and make any claims.... does not matter how interesting the claims are, you just cannot accept it. Matrix the movie is pretty interesting... Back to the future is pretty interesting... John Travolta's Angel is pretty interesting...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Originally posted by casino_king:Yes you're right. But it only deals with particular things, science does not have full understanding of spirituality so far. How fast it takes for more knowledge in the spiritual field also highly depends on which way the scientists are directing their effort towards. Also for 2500 years, Buddhists do not feel at all threatened by the development of Science, but in fact, do look forward to scientific developments. It does not at all contradict Buddhism. Science has proven many things the Buddha taught, although there is still limits to what science currently understands. Buddhism is perhaps the only religion fully compatible with science. Or perhaps it shouldn't have been called a religion in the first place.
[b]
(Modern) Scientific Method has worked really well in advancing human knowledge over the years...
You claim that Buddhism is "scientific" well none of the modern advancement in science and technology and none of the advancement in medicine came from Buddhism, if I am not wrong.As I said. Buddhism is not a science as for example Biology, Chemistry, Physics. It deals with our consciousness, the path of purification, it deals with spirituality. Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc, does not help in this area. Technology certainly does not help in that - so don't confuse things.
What does that tell you?Modern Scientific Method does not guide people's life although it does help to improve people's quality of life. Like I said dont confuse different things together. They deal with different sort of things. You are like trying to use Biology to deal with Physics. Or chemistry to deal with Arts.
If you want me to give up the (Modern) Scientific Method as a principle to guide my own life, then you have to give me something superior.
Hi Casino_King,
It is inadequate to use rational thought to understand spiritual matters. Logic is only that branch of philosophy that deals with reasoning. It does not deal with all types of thinking such as remembering (Recalling past life included), dreaming (Dream Yoga), day dreaming, neurosis, learning..etc. These other types of thinking are the job of psychology and parapsychology.
Although evidence is needed to serve as a base for inductive and deductive reasoning, full proof evidence to arrive at a certain conclusion is not necessary in logical analysis. In daily life, not all reasoning attempts to provide conclusive evidence for the truth of a given conclusion and more often than not, conclusive evidence cannot be produced. For pragmatic ground, we merely want the evidence we arrived at be 'well founded'.
As human, sleeping and dreaming took up pretty much percentage of our life. We are not just a rational being, to understand human, we have to deal with all these matters with spiritual issues included.
I note that you say "Science does NOT include dealing with spirituality. "What i meant by 'spirituality' isnt about 'spirit', but a deeper meaning:
This implies that there is a place for Buddhism (let's leave the others out of it for the time being.)
Well I will have you know that as far as science is concern, there is no evidence for the "spirit." So if there is no evidence for the spirit, then there is so such thing as spirituality.
Before we go on, please define "spirit." Then define "spirituality. "
Please do it for yourself because I know that there is no evidence for spirit and so as far as I am concern, any notion of spirit must be assumed to be in the realm of "fantasy." Fantasy as in something that is in people's head but where there is no evidence for. Not necessarily bad "bad" but cannot be considered because there is no evidence of it's existence.
Just like, even though there might be an alien race out there somewhere in outer space who will come to earth to rescue us from our mortality, I will not give it any consideration as I go about my daily life because there is no evidence of that.
So back to you before I go on.
Reply with Quote
Hi Casino_King,
‘Spiritual Matters’ is merely a term to denote paranormal phenomenon, it is not an assumption. However If I were to assert that ‘spiritual matters really exist’, then it is an assumption. I believe I have not done so. Similarly if anyone were to assert that “spiritual matters do not exist” then he/she immediately makes it an assumption. The fact is, paranormal phenomenons are neither proven nor disproved. Thus, we have to explore further. But which and what method of exploration should we adopt?
I have stated that mere logical analysis isn’t the correct approach -- “It is inadequate to use rational thought to understand spiritual matters”, I have given my reasons. If you disagree, you must, at least tell me why or how through inference or syllogism itself is sufficient to ‘understand’ spiritual matters. Or prove that -- “It is inadequate to use rational thought to understand spiritual matters” is an untrue statement through logic of syllogism. Otherwise it is only reasonable and logical to employ a different approach.
Till now I have not spoken anything about Buddhism. I certainly do not want to deviate too much from this forum but as what many forumers have pointed out, you might have to put in a little more effort towards understanding some of the main core concepts and teachings of Buddhism -- Buddhism certainly isn't what you have perceived it to be. Like you, I have made some studies and practices in other religions (add Taoism to your list), I still think Buddhism best.
Lastly I do see some of your points. You might want to look into how man is defined by symbols for your gambler case. Again what I am going to say next might not be soothing to your ears but Buddhism truly teaches us how to go beyond these symbols. In whatever case, reserve an open for a fruitful discussion. We might not reach any conclusion but without an open mind, any form of discussion will eventually prove futile.