are all religions the same ?
-
Nope. If a Buddhist practised Buddha's teachings correctly, it will never make them become crackpots. Unless it is deviant cults.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Any census on the numbers of ex-Buddhists who complained that their former practice made them to be crackpots? -
Nope, because catch no balls what the **** is it about.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Nope. If a Buddhist practised Buddha's teachings correctly, it will never make them become crackpots. Unless it is deviant cults. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
an oppositely smart anwser. so if they don't do dharma, do what? eat?, sleep?, watch movies, listen to music, go to work, surf some internets, play from share, make some money...no, make many many money..
Just enlightening other forum readers.[/b]
money not enough, go rob/steal some from others. or kill them to get money. nevermind, one life only meh. die die lor. what else?
/\ -
Correct, that's the best suggestion of the day.Originally posted by sinweiy:an oppositely smart anwser. so if they don't do dharma, do what? eat?, sleep?, watch movies, listen to music, go to work, surf some internets, play from share, make some money...no, make many many money..
money not enough, go rob/steal some from others. or kill them to get money. nevermind, one life only meh. die die lor. what else?
/\ -
Catch no balls is due to no teachers teaching them.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Nope, because catch no balls what the **** is it about.
If there is a good teacher and you practise correctly not only will you not "catch no balls", you will definitely see the truths that Buddha has been saying all along, yourselves.
Just a reminder, excerpt from Buddhism and Science article, talk by Ajahn Brahmavamso:Originally posted by concerned_man:Come and See for Yourself
If you had just one person who had been confirmed as medically dead who could describe to the doctors, as soon as they were revived, what had been said, and done during that period of death, wouldn't that be pretty convincing? When I was doing elementary particle physics there was a theory that required for its proof the existence of what was called the 'W' particle. At the cyclotron in Geneva, CERN funded a huge research project, smashing atoms together with an enormous particle accelerator, to try and find one of these 'W' particles. They spent literally hundreds of millions of pounds on this project. They found one, just one 'W' particle. I don't think they have found another since. But once they found one 'W' particle, the researchers involved in that project were given Nobel prizes for physics. They had proved the theory by just finding the one 'W' particle. That's good science. Just one is enough to prove the theory.
When it comes to things we don't like to believe, they call just one experience, one clear factual undeniable experience, an anomaly. Anomaly is a word in science for disconcerting evidence that we can put in the back of a filing cabinet and not look at again, because it's threatens our worldview. It undermines what we want to believe. It is threatening to our dogma. However, an essential part of the scientific method is that theories have to be abandoned in favour of the evidence, in respect of the facts. The point is that the evidence for a mind independent of the brain is there. But once we admit that evidence, and follow the scientific method, then many cherished theories, what we call 'sacred cows' will have to be abandoned.
When we see something that challenges any theory, in science or in religion, we should not ignore the evidence. We have to change the theory to fit the facts. That is what we do in Buddhism. All the Dhamma of the Buddha, everything that he taught, if it does not fit the experience, then we should not accept it. We should not accept the Buddha's words in contradiction of experience. That is clearly stated in the Kālāma Sutta. (AN III, 65) The Buddha said do not believe because it is written in the books, or even if I say it. Don't just believe because it is tradition, or because it sounds right, or because it's comforting to you. Make sure it fits your experience. The existence of mind, independent of the brain, fits experience. The facts are there.
Sometimes, however, we cannot trust the experts. You cannot trust Ajahn Brahm. You cannot trust the scientific journals. Because people are often biased. Buddhism gives you a scientific method for your practice. Buddhism says, do the experiment and find out for your self if what the Buddha said is true or not. Check out your experience. For example, develop the method to test the truth of past lives, rebirth and reincarnation. Don't just believe it with faith, find out for yourself. The Buddha has given a scientific experiment that you can repeat.
Until you understand the law of kamma, which is part of Buddhism, kamma is just a theory. Do you believe that there is a God 'up there' who decides when you can be happy or unhappy? Or is everything that happens to you just chance? Your happiness and your suffering in life, your joy, your pain and disappointments, are they deserved? Are you responsible or is it someone else's fault? Is it mere chance that we are rich or poor? Is it bad luck when we are sick and die at a young age? Why? You can find the true answer for yourself. You can experience the law of kamma through deep meditation. When the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree at Bodhgaya, the two knowledge's he realized just before his Enlightenment were the knowledge from experience of the truth of rebirth, and the knowledge from experience of the Law of kamma. This was not theory, not just more thinking, not something worked out from discussions around the coffee table this was realization from deep experience of the nature of mind. You too can have that same experience.
All religions in the world except Buddhism maintain the existence of a soul. They affirm a real 'self', an 'essence of all being', a 'person', a 'me'. Buddhism says there is no self! Who is right? What is this 'ghost in the machine'? Is it a soul, is it a being, or is it a process? What is it? When the Buddha said that there is no one in here, he never meant that to be just believed, he meant that to be experienced. The Buddha said, as a scientific fact, that there is no 'self'. But like any scientific fact, it has to be experienced each one for themselves, paccattam veditabbo viññūhī. Many of you chant those Pāli words every day. It is basic scientific Buddhism. You have to keep an open mind. You don't believe there is 'no self', you don't believe there is a 'self' both beliefs are dogmatism. Keep an open mind until you complete the experiment. The experiment is the practice of sila, samādhi and pañña, (virtue, meditation and insight). The experiment is Buddhist practice. Do the same experimental procedures that the Buddha did under the Bodhi tree. Repeat it and see if you get the same results. The result is called Enlightenment.
Men and women have repeated that experiment many times over the centuries. It is in the laboratory of Buddhist practice that the Enlightened Ones, the Arahants, arise. The Arahants are the ones who have done the experiment and found the result. That's why Buddhism always has been the scientific way. It is the way of finding out for your self the truth of Enlightenment. -
Not that, because all masters gave up on me.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
-
I thought you said you never practised anything spiritual in the past?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Not that, because all masters gave up on me. 
-
Chance meeting with monks and religious fanatics mah.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I thought you said you never practised anything spiritual in the past? 
Talk until they blur or they angry... -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
go lor, nobody here stopping u. ur karma stops ur huh?
Correct, that's the best suggestion of the day.
/\ -
Wrong, your stuipidity stops itself...Originally posted by sinweiy:go lor, nobody here stopping u. ur karma stops ur huh?
/\
Next, ask yourself, quantity or quality.
Is it a need or a want?
What is the cost of the need or the want?
Is it worth it? -
I always suspected that you are here to irritate more than to debate.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Chance meeting with monks and religious fanatics mah.
Talk until they blur or they angry... -
Since I am always based on science and evidence mah...Originally posted by Beyond Religion:I always suspected that you are here to irritate more than to debate. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
yes we r very stupid people. maybe don't mix with us. many smart people out there. can mix with them better.
Wrong, your stuipidity stops itself...
Next, ask yourself, quantity or quality.
Is it a need or a want?
What is the cost of the need or the want?
Is it worth it?
/\ -
You are not even talking anything related to science and evidence. You are merely full of your own ideas and assumptions that has nothing to do with science.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Since I am always based on science and evidence mah...
Not only is there no evidence to disprove rebirth, there is actually evidences that rebirth is true. So by right if you are a scientific person you should accept the phenomena of rebirth.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda05.htm
Question:
You have talked a lot about rebirth but is there any proof that we are reborn when we die?
Answer:
Not only is there scientific evidence to support the Buddhist belief in rebirth, it is the only after-life theory that has any evidence to support it. There is not a scrap of evidence to prove the existence of heaven and of course evidence of annihilation at death must be lacking. But during the last 30 years parapsychologists have been studying reports that some people have vivid memories of their former lives. For example, in England, a 5 year-old girl said she could remember her "other mother and father" and she talked vividly about what sounded like the events in the life of another person. Parapsychologists were called in and they asked her hundreds of questions to which she gave answers. She spoke of living in a particular village in what appeared to be Spain, she gave the name of the village, the name of the street she lived in, her neighbors' names and details about her everyday life there. She also fearfully spoke of how she had been struck by a car and died of her injuries two days later. When these details were checked, they were found to be accurate. There was a village in Spain with the name the five-year-old girl had given. There was a house of the type she had described in the street she had named. What is more, it was found that a 23-year-old woman living in the house had been killed in a car accident five years before. Now how is it possible for a five year- old girl living in England and who had never been to Spain to know all these details? And of course, this is not the only case of this type. Professor Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia's Department of Psychology has described dozens of cases of this type in his books. He is an accredited scientist whose 25 year study of people who remember former lives is very strong evidence for the Buddhist teaching of rebirth.Question:
Well, have there been any scientists who believe in rebirth?
Answer:
Yes. Thomas Huxley, who was responsible for having science introduced into the 19th century British school system and who was the first scientist to defend Darwin's theories, believed that reincarnation was a very plausible idea. In his famous book 'Evolution and Ethics and other Essays', he says:
In the doctrine of transmigration, whatever its origin, Brahmanical and Buddhist speculation found, ready to hand, the means of constructing a plausible vindication of the ways of the Cosmos to man... Yet this plea of justification is not less plausible than others; and none but very hasty thinkers will reject it on the ground of inherent absurdity. Like the doctrine of evolution itself, that of transmigration has its roots in the world of reality; and it may claim such support as the great argument from analogy is capable of supplying.
Then, Professor Gustaf Stromberg, the famous Swedish astronomer, physicist and friend of Einstein also found the idea of rebirth appealing. Opinions differ whether human souls can be reincarnated on the earth or not. In 1936 a very interesting case was thoroughly investigated and reported by the government authorities in India. A girl (Shanti Devi from Delhi) could accurately describe her previous life (at Muttra, five hundred miles from Delhi) which ended about a year before her "second birth." She gave the name of her husband and child and described her home and life history. The investigating commission brought her to her former relatives, who verified all her statements. Among the people of India reincarnations are regarded as commonplace; the astonishing thing for them in this case was the great number of facts the girl remembered. This and similar cases can be regarded as additional evidence for the theory of the indestructibility of memory. Professor Julian Huxley, the distinguished British scientist who was Director General of UNESCO believed that rebirth was quite in harmony with scientific thinking. There is nothing against a permanently surviving spirit-individuality being in some way given off at death, as a definite wireless message is given off by a sending apparatus working in a particular way. But it must be remembered that the wireless message only becomes a message again when it comes in contact with a new, material structure - the receiver. So with our possible spirit-emanation. It... would never think or feel unless again 'embodied' in some way. Our per venalities are so based on body that it is really impossible to think of survival which would be in any true sense personal without a body of sorts... I can think of something being given off which would bear the same relation to men and women as a wireless message to the transmitting apparatus; but in that case 'the dead' would, so far as one can see, be nothing but disturbances of different patterns wandering through the universe until... they... came back to actuality of consciousness by making contact with something which could work as a receiving apparatus for mind. Even very practical and down-to-earth people like the American industrialist Henry Ford found the idea or rebirth acceptable. Ford was attracted to the idea of rebirth because, unlike the theistic idea or the materialistic idea, rebirth gives you a second chance to develop yourself. Henry Ford says: I adopted the theory of Reincarnation when I was twenty-six. Religion offered nothing to the point.. Even work could not give me complete satisfaction. Work is fume if we cannot utilize the experience we collect in one life in the next. When I discovered Reincarnation it was as if I had found a universal plan. I realized that there was a chance to work out my ideas. Time was no longer limited. I was no longer a slave to the hands of the clock... Genius is experience. Some seem to think that it is a gift or talent, but it is the fruit of long experience in many lives. Some are older souls than others, and so they know more... The discovery of Reincarnation put my mind at ease... If you preserve a record of this conversation, write it so that it puts men's minds at ease. I would like to communicate to others the calmness that the long view of life gives to us.
So the Buddhist teachings of rebirth does have some scientific evidence to support it. It is logically consistent and it goes a long way to answering questions that theistic and the materialistic theories fail to do. But it is also very comforting. What can be worse than a theory of life that gives you no second chance, no opportunity to amend the mistakes you have made in this life and no time to further develop the skills and abilities you have nurtured in this life. But according to the Buddha, if you fail to attain Nirvana in this life, you will have the opportunity to try again next time. If you have made mistakes in this life, you will be able to correct yourself in the next life. You will truly be able to learn from your mistakes. Things you were unable to do or achieve in this life may well become possible in the next life. What a wonderful teaching! -
Oh yes one more thing, science is extremely backward in regards to consciousness. Any honest scientists will tell you that. Buddhism is much more advance. Even if science can prove some spiritual realities (as quantum physics had some results), it is only solely through Buddha's teachings that you can experience the truths personally. Therefore the teachings of Buddha 2500 years ago is already much much more advance than anyone else could ever come up with, in terms of discovering out true nature and attaining liberation -- everything is layed out so clearly by the Buddha, you practise what he say, you see the results.
If you want to remain in the 'frog's well' of classical science, which is usually not even beyond the relative truths and limits of time and space, that is up to you, Buddhism contains so much truths that modern science has only began to scratch. You can stick to your science, in the meantime, all of us gets enlightened, liberated first and experience the highest bliss of nirvana. -
Because you don't bother talking sense, you just want to irritate them what...Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Chance meeting with monks and religious fanatics mah.
Talk until they blur or they angry... -
And of course, let us not forget the wonderful article Longchen wrote
The Limitation of science in dealing with Reality
As Beings, the conventional mind only sees interpretations of Reality.
Why is this so? This is because, firstly Sensory data are interpretations(manifested form) of reality. Why are they interpretations and are not the direct experiencing of it (Reality)? To illustrate this point...lets consider the perception of 2 person: a color-blind person and one with normal vision. The color-blind person may sees images differently from one who is not. So... who is seeing the truth?...none. Both are seeing interpretations(manifested form) of the Truth. Likewise animals may see and sense things differently from humans.
Sensory datas that are being percieved are in turn cognated by the conventional mind. Again, the conventional mind sees interpretations collected by sensory perception. From the sensory datas, the conventional mind conceive the informations into things, environments and people... A simplified example is that by differentiating the changes in colours on the vision sight, the conventional mind cognate edges... with the edges connected... the enclosed area become percieved as objects, things, entities...
The conventional mind can only theorizes from its interpretations. Science is based on the theory and concepts derived from the conventional mind.
Science is just that... conceptual framework for understanding the dynamics of Reality... But it can only theorizes using concepts.
To truly experience Reality...one must go beyond thinking (which is theorising) about Reality. We must experience it directly.
PS: From the way that I have written... some people might have the misconceptions that the Source(Reality) is separated from us. This is clearly not so. It is the conventional discriminating mind that think in terms of separation and duality. However, the conventional discriminating mind itself is not an entity, but is just the dualistic function of cognition. -
I quoted about the Butterfly Effect of Chaos Theory(remember the discussion about involuntary action?) and they just got angry over nothing. Hence, I am not talking nonsense but stating a fact. Their minds are not broad enough to take in facts.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Because you don't bother talking sense, you just want to irritate them what... -
I have been observing the way you "debate" in these forums. Most of the time you appear to be quite incoherent in your lines of argument, lacking a clear and concise point. Indeed, often times you give the impression of arguing for the sake of arguing and opposing for the sake of opposing. Its either you are seeking to deliberately irritate people, or your skills of expression is extremely limited.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I quoted about the Butterfly Effect of Chaos Theory(remember the discussion about involuntary action?) and they just got angry over nothing. Hence, I am not talking nonsense but stating a fact. Their minds are not broad enough to take in facts.
Assuming that you are trying to debate in good faith. It might be worthwhile for you to give some thoughts on how to put your thoughts and arguments forward. You may think that posting snide and glib one-liners make you look "cool". Unfortunately, it will just result in people misunderstanding you. -
Butterfly Effect is fine, and corresponds with Buddhism's teaching on interdependent co-arising, but anyway Butterfly leading to tornadoes is an extremely unlikely event. I know many people believe in this, but go do research.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I quoted about the Butterfly Effect of Chaos Theory(remember the discussion about involuntary action?) and they just got angry over nothing. Hence, I am not talking nonsense but stating a fact. Their minds are not broad enough to take in facts. -
In other words, you cannot just have a butterfly alone. You also need other factors to make a tornado.
-
Yup agreed...Originally posted by Beyond Religion:I have been observing the way you "debate" in these forums. Most of the time you appear to be quite incoherent in your lines of argument, lacking a clear and concise point. Indeed, often times you give the impression of arguing for the sake of arguing and opposing for the sake of opposing. Its either you are seeking to deliberately irritate people, or your skills of expression is extremely limited.
Assuming that you are trying to debate in good faith. It might be worthwhile for you to give some thoughts on how to put your thoughts and arguments forward. You may think that posting snide and glib one-liners make you look "cool". Unfortunately, it will just result in people misunderstanding you. -
You're rightOriginally posted by Eric Cartman:In other words, you cannot just have a butterfly alone. You also need other factors to make a tornado.
-
That's very good Eric_Cartman.Originally posted by Eric Cartman:In other words, you cannot just have a butterfly alone. You also need other factors to make a tornado.
Cherrio -
Based on the Chaos Theory you had quoted, you should know that you are creating a storm here, but what you do not know is that this storm will have little or no impact on us. It will affect you more.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I quoted about the Butterfly Effect of Chaos Theory(remember the discussion about involuntary action?) and they just got angry over nothing. Hence, I am not talking nonsense but stating a fact. Their minds are not broad enough to take in facts.
Cherrio