Buddhism cannot be discussed openly?
-
I shall let the other forummers reply you
-
Yes they do! Scientists argue about everything and anything. Challenge each other findings as a one-upmanship competition. Sometimes for truth, sometimes for ego. So science, in itself is not that noble after all...Originally posted by casino_king:They don't argue over speculation... like in the case with the South Korean scientists... his research is scutinised by the world wide community and if there is anything amiss... he is condemned.
That is the "scientific method" not this type of ... look there is something in the ashes... "What is it?" "Don't know, but let's speculate what it is."
The Korean scientist was faking his findings until he can't fake it anymore. What killed him off is to have one bigger fake each time round. Remember nobody scrutinised him until his last forgery.
.... the reality of the matter is, even for science, nothing is really absolute. Sure, knowledge continues to grow each cycle, but at any given point, science is a dynamic thing. One experiment disproves another.
Note that I am neither defending Christianity or Buddhism, I am saying that while looking at the half full cup of science you condemn the half empty cup of religion. In reality, neither of each is perfect yet you laud one and put down the other. -
I chellenge you to give me your best shot and you want "others" to do it... please lah, don't play play...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I shall let the other forummers reply you
anyway... the invitation is now open to all the Buddhist in this forum.
The Christians in the other thread claim to have good and credible evidence to support their case and so do the Buddhists.
My position is that if you do not provide good evidence that is of the required standard like the standard set by what is known as "scientific method" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
then all the evidence amounts only to "speculation." -
Buddhists do not speculate what Shariras is.
That is the "scientific method" not this type of ... look there is something in the ashes... "What is it?" "Don't know, but let's speculate what it is."[/b]
Like I said, this is the job for the scientists. -
Originally posted by casino_king:My position is that if you do not provide good evidence that is of the required standard like the standard set by what is known as "scientific method" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method wah lau.... same old wikipedia link. Nothing else hah?
-
So please give me what you consider is the best evidence available evidence in defense of Buddhism and we will look at it.
Please name one, without any supporting references yet and we all go and google and do our own research then come back. -
Do the scientists have any conclusions....?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Buddhists do not speculate what Shariras is.
Like I said, this is the job for the scientists. -
Don't avoid the issue lah... name one and we look at it...Originally posted by Chin Eng:Do the scientists have any conclusions....?
Like I told the Christians... just because the tap water is not perfectly clean you don't then say it is ok to drink from the toilet bowl. -
I dont think anything I have posted so far is against the 'Scientific Method'.Originally posted by casino_king:I chellenge you to give me your best shot and you want "others" to do it... please lah, don't play play...
anyway... the invitation is now open to all the Buddhist in this forum.
The Christians in the other thread claim to have good and credible evidence to support their case and so do the Buddhists.
My position is that if you do not provide good evidence that is of the required standard like the standard set by what is known as "scientific method" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
then all the evidence amounts only to "speculation."
Take shariras for example. It is a FACT that shariras exist, and if you have missed the great Singapore Buddha Tooth relics exhibition in Singapore Expo a few years ago, which not only housed Buddha's tooth relics but also uncountable other miraculous and colourful relics, I think you missed something great.
Scientific explanation? I dont think there is scientific explanation yet, but like i said, this is NOT what Buddhists are concerned about. Whether we understand scientifically the miraculous workings of shariras, it does not affect our spiritual enlightenment.
Then take the Holographic Reality model I have shared with you earlier on, it is scientific explanation BACKED by EVIDENCE, so again it is not against your 'scientific method' website. The Holographic Nature of Reality is taught by Buddha 2500 years ago and also similarly taught and spoken by other mystics and contemplatives. The book on The Amazing Holographic Universe also explains scientifically how paranormal activities can occur.
Then take Ian Stevenson's research on past life - and many others researches (i.e http://www.business.uq.edu.au/staff/personal/zhong/reinc/) on past life - it is also backed by a lot of evidence.
Then take the 'amazing abilities' thread - and its evidences - and its scientific explanations - all these are not speculations but is part of SCIENCE and quantum physics (the explanation part). This explains how psychic, paranormal phenomena is possible. In fact miracles, psychic phenomena, are so common in all religions that if you want to look for them you do not need to come to Buddhism. Not only monks have supernatural powers. There are so many people throughout the world who has psychic, supernatural abilities - even on this forum. Hopefully you may meet one someday and be convinced. I am convinced because of my personal experiences.
Also, countless Near Death Experience cases confirm that Consciousness DOES survive after death.
Many of these people who are CLINICALLY DEAD for a few minutes/seconds before revival report floating above their bodies and watching what was happening to "HIM" (his dead body) - everything in exact details.
Let me remind you again the Buddhism and Buddhist practise itself is PROOF.
If you dont believe it, by following Buddha's method, you will find the proof - just like countless others had. Similarly a science experiment that has succeeded will be reproducable by all others. Similar case - Buddha's enlightenment is reproducable in everybody else.
Lastly, because I can sense that there is some attachment to scepticism on your part, may I suggest that you read thoroughly the new topic I have created - Dogmatism? Blind Faith? The Kalamas are Disillusioned. There is no need for me to prove anything on the forum.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, as well as the correction and integration of previous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.
-----
Under this definition, then Buddhism CERTAINLY is a Scientific Method. But its techniques are DIFFERENT from those that you more often know. Like I said, don't confuse Biology with Physics, Chemistry with Arts. And also, Buddhism also deals with that which is beyond the 'natural world'.
"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"
-- 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
See Buddhism and Science article[/b][/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by An Eternal Now:More from the Scientific Method webpage:
* Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation.
* Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities.
* Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena.
* Falsifiable and testable. See Falsifiability and Testability.
* Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.
* Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made.
* Integrative, robust, and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. See Correspondence principle
* Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory.
------
So far, Buddhism fulfills ALL of it
Being a contemplative system Free from dogmatism but self-realisation, self-observation.
As seen in the topic 'Dogmatism? Blind Faith? The Kalamas are Disillusioned', true contemplatives do not need to depend on scientific reports. If it were otherwise, for 2500 years, of which a large period of time there is lack of modern science, nobody would have become enlightened. Buddhism is not a religion, neither is it just a philosophy or an academic subject. It reveals truths beyond theories and comprehension of the mind. A person of high caliber (as have been seen in Albert Einstein) will not limit himself solely to science to understand the universe -- not everything is measurable and quantifiable. There is absolutely no need for us to prove anything - if we cultivate the dharma we will see for ourselves.
May you be enlightened. -
I distinct remember asking you some questions and you'd said you'd think about it, but I don't remember you answering.....Originally posted by casino_king:Don't avoid the issue lah... name one and we look at it...
For starters: Do you believe in the supernatural, and if a person does, it this person delusional? I have asked you this question, like half a dozen times...
So..... don't avoid the issue -
(moved to post above)
-
Please don't avoid the issue. Name one "proof" in support of Buddhism that stands up to the said standard.
-
Originally posted by casino_king:
there's why u need to go deeper into Buddhism understanding. we have different levels for different kinds of people.
[b]
The Christians in the other thread say exactly the same thing... that their evidence is good evidence.... yet the Buddhists and the Christians say opposite things about each other.
One say they have good evidence that there is a God.
The other say there is good evidence that there is no God.
Can you people not see that the evidence you give amounts only to speculations? Raise your standards a little or you are no better than the gamblers but maybe you are opposite sides of the same coin.
One side speculate to their destruction and one side speculate to their happiness.
But sides are speculating nevertheless.I can tell you why Buddhism can be dangerous... say you have a believer who believes what Buddhism teaches and then decides to "leave" the "world" and what will happen to his poor wife and children? I dare not imagine.
see another misunderstanding w/o studying deeper. detachment/contenment is from the mind rather than from the outside. nobody ask u not to eat, sleep and live a life.
u don't have to cut the fingers into equal length in order to have a mindset that they are equal.
/\ -
I have to go now... I hope by the time I come back I see the "proof." Remeber that it must not be based on speculation and must be up to standard.
-
Haven't you read my post? I have posted so many - but you are the one who has avoided everything I posted when it comes to 'proof'Originally posted by casino_king:Please don't avoid the issue. Name one "proof" in support of Buddhism that stands up to the said standard. Really - go check all the previous topic and the previous posts in this topic. -
I also hope that when you come back, you'd given some thoughts to my question. It's even a simpler question that the one you asked, surely a person with such a knowledgeable background is able to give an answer to this one?Originally posted by casino_king:I have to go now... I hope by the time I come back I see the "proof." Remeber that it must not be based on speculation and must be up to standard.
In case you forget: the question is: do you believe that there is a supernatural realm, and if you do, are you also delusional? -
[moved to post above]
-
Hey AEN.... the issue with Casino on evidence and proof is: what is admissible evidence and what is not - in his mind. No different from racial and religious bigots who exclude anything that does not fit their mindset.
There is no way to prove to him the existence of a deity because no evidence will be deem acceptable to him. -
If that is the case, I have already replied him previouslyOriginally posted by Chin Eng:Hey AEN.... the issue with Casino on evidence and proof is: what is admissible evidence and what is not - in his mind. No different from racial and religious bigots who exclude anything that does not fit their mindset.
There is no way to prove to him the existence of a deity because no evidence will be deem acceptable to him.
....But no matter how much studies and research - is it able to convince people from other faiths? Especially in the field of 'Spirituality'. Maybe not. Many ppl, including Atheists, or from other Faiths, will have trouble accepting these truths (i.e Darwin's theory of evolution?). That is because of their dogmatism, lack of open mindedness. Prove is already out there - but if you are dogmatic, you will never be able to accept it. The ultimate proof that will clear ALL doubts, not even single one remaining, is through Enlightenment itself. Prior to that it is still OK to have doubts, as long as your doubt does not become a Fetter and Obstruction to your path.....
Anyway I am not proving the existence of a deity (buddhists dont worship deities) - but the tenets of Buddhism. Actually there is no need for me to prove at all, one just needs to go by the guidelines of the Kalama Sutta in Buddhism. -
a blind person since birth ask u to prove the existence of colour to him.Prove to him wat is yellow wat is blue.How should u do it?
-
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:a blind person since birth ask u to prove the existence of colour to him.Prove to him wat is yellow wat is blue.How should u do it? good question!
-
its time to stop hogging the pc and stop looking for answers , for reasons, for satisfaction.
get out of the house, spent some time with yr family and yr love ones, do some community work or just go destress yrself: yoga, listening to music, hanging out with friends.
Buddha is there whether u like it or not. its all written in the sutras.
Imagine u were born few hundred yrs ago, at that time, 'science' or ' theorys'
developed by men were not even born yet. is that true reasoning based on pple's ideas?
There is no need for reasoning. Settle yr mind and calm yrself.
The answer is in you. -
you are your own worst enemy. conquer self is better than conquer 1000 soldiers or armies.Originally posted by casino_king:If you are like the christians and claim that you can see and know after you are dead... well maybe you can claim that "spirituality cannot be comprehended by simple logic and thoughts. We will have to see it for ourselves."
You are saying that here and now in this physical world, people can see and do things that are supernatural but even though you are talking about here and now and living people, you fail to produce any evidence of that and you simply believe it.
I am so tired of debating with religious people because you people have such low standards. Anything is acceptable as evidence as long as you choose to believe it.
there is no doubt in my mind you are not only ignorant, but very stubborn and opinionated. thats normal for unenlightened being like you and me included.
when you spit out something with the intention of insulting or humiliate, you do not realise you are spitting and insulted and humiliated yourself. how sad you can't realise this simple truth. -
if the blind say yellow and orange doesnt exist, cos he cant see them, how do you explain or convince him color does exists.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:a blind person since birth ask u to prove the existence of colour to him.Prove to him wat is yellow wat is blue.How should u do it? -
even if one place a pot of gold infront of him..he sees as a shit.
facts/reason dun work on aggressor like him..common sense will do.
he sees himself as the winner no matter wats the situation.
he challenge juz to prove he is 'right'.
he thought by 'winning' , he feel his existence
it is usually those ppl wo feel highly insecure in urslf who will be out to challenge ppl in 'viewin life'.
he lives in his world
then let him be the 'king' of his world
for he fear to even step out from his tiny world
he will be sinkin in his fantasy world.
one sees himslf as the hero
standin tall in the zero
whether its zero or hero
time will tell tis fellow
eh bro post in aunt agony lar..i can help u in ur personality crisis ..shed some light for free if u wan..provided i got extra time or u.
no substance even if go double digit..nah.