Are they still Buddhists without Karma and other fantastics?
-
Actually yes, Buddhists should have faith in the triple gems and Buddha's words. Though at the same time we must strive to find out and experience the truth ourselves.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:People like George Bush tells you that it is belief and Faith. Why can't you accept that but you can accept what some other people tell you? What is the standard, the yardstick, the rule that can be used to make a decision to accept or not to accept?
There is such a yardstick and it has worked very well as we can see from the tangible advancements so far.
Like Thusness said -- we cannot run away from faith and belief, because knowledge has NO certainty, though whether it is 'good faith' or 'rational faith' is another matter -- i.e if countless people tell you they have done the experiment and you can do it too, and you have faith in them to do the experiment, this is probably 'good' and 'rational faith'.
If the police who has information about a terrorist plot tell you there's a bomb in the building, you leave the building immediately. You have to have faith in what is being said, there is no choice because there is no certainty in knowledge.
Similarly if the Buddha experienced Nirvana and tell you how to liberate from samsara you must accept it with faith at first but it need not be blind faith, and furthermore you can see the truth for yourself -- the Buddha actually gave you the scientific method to experiment and realise the truths. So our faith is rational.
It is actually being discussed before at Faith in Belief SystemsOriginally posted by Thusness:
Interesting topic and I think I will skew a little to talk about science and faith since AEN was discussing a related thread yesterday.
Faith is necessary because there is no certainty in knowledge. Even in exact science, no certainty is to be found. Of course certainty versus probable knowledge is a topic relating to Epistemology (the theory on Knowledge) but still, it is pivotal towards understanding why the need for faith at all. How science has led to the common misunderstanding that faith is not necessary is amazing but it is mostly due to the predictive nature of these scientific theories derived from thorough experimentation. This is, however, mainly due to the fact that the pool of data made available for the derivation of these theories does not go beyond our man-size world. As we know, Newtonian physics or classical science works well for a man-size world but not quite well in the macro and micro universe. Our ordinary experiences do not permit us to experience something having the mass of a star or traveling at half-speed of light, we presume that the entire universe must obey the laws of the man-size world. But when we are exposed to things not so ordinary, like traveling at a speed much faster then our ordinary experience of ‘speed’, we are lost because phenomena just don’t behave the way we expected it to be. The idea that time travel slower when they are approaching the speed of light and halt at speed of light is mind boggling. Similarly when scientists begin to deal with the universe of the outer space – the macro universe, they are dealing with much more massive objects than the man-size world, a billion times more. The idea that space curves and time halt at the speed of light came as a shocked to the classical scientists. This applies true when we deal with the micro universe of the quantum world. The world of the electrons does not comply with Newtonian nor Einstein theory. This includes the spooky non-local behavior of particles that AEN brought up in another thread. [b]When Heisenberg introduced the ‘uncertainty’ principle, it is so weird that even Einstein rejected it and thus, Einstein famous remark -- “God does not play dice”. But “God does not play dice” is a belief system! I can’t remember where I read it but I could clearly recalled that even Stephen Hawking used phrases like “official dogma”, “deep emotional attachment to determinism” to describe scientists like Einstein. Stephen Hawking even went further to say that Einstein was doubly wrong when he said “God does not play dice”.
I will not dwell too deeply into it but the purpose is simply to illustrate that our knowledge is nothing certain nor absolute. Science is itself a belief system for us to better understand the phenomenon existence. It is its certainty in predictability within a prescribed environment that convinces us that faith is not necessary. It creates the impression of certainty and made a probable knowledge appears absolute but in actual case, science itself is a belief system and a great deal of faith (maybe good and rational faith in this case) is vested in science unknowingly.
My 2 cents. [/b] -
Look more closely!!!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:That is from the
Expansion of the Formula by Ven. Walpola Sri Rahula in 1981.
It was not the original agreement by the council. This is what one person said and not what the council agreed upon.
We KNOW that different people believe different things and that is why the council decided to come up with an Ecumenical statement , and in this Ecumenical statement , there was no mention of the fantastics.
Conditioned arising and Karma is included.
#
# We accept the Four Noble Truths, namely duḥkha, the arising of duḥkha, the cessation of duḥkha, and the path leading to the cessation of duḥkha; and the law of cause and effect (Pratītyasamutpāda)
BTW, the 12 links of Pratyakasamutpada/Dependent Origination includes Rebirth too!
Anyone that denies Dependent Origination is non-Buddhistic and bound to be subject to false and externalist views such as eternalism, nihilism, etc etc.
As the Buddha said, those who sees Dependent Origination sees the Dharma, and those who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.
Dependent Origination points to the true nature of reality, Emptiness and Luminosity inseparable (also see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html), our Buddha Nature. -
You are missing the point. The point I made was why you take it that the way some people recommend, the things some people says, you take it as acceptable but not the way some other people recommend to you.
You said something about these people also tell you how you can do it/find out for yourself.
Well George Bush also tells you that you must accept, believe, discard all other ways and you will find out for yourself but you do not accept his way.
So the question is, what yardstick, standard do you use to determine whether or not you should test it out for yourself.
For example, there are two independent lab in the world to test particle physics discoveries and why are there two? To verify each other's findings.
Not only do you tell people what they can do to achieve the results, the results must be measurable and not dependent on the imagination of the participants.
You see what a high standard it is? Without such high standards, it is very easy to go into a delusion mode. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
You mean this part?
Look more closely!!! Conditioned arising and Karma is included.
[b]#
# We accept the Four Noble Truths, namely duḥkha, the arising of duḥkha, the cessation of duḥkha, and the path leading to the cessation of duḥkha; and the law of cause and effect (Pratītyasamutpāda)
BTW, the 12 links of Pratyakasamutpada/Dependent Origination includes Rebirth too!
Any Buddhist sects that denies Dependent Origination is non-Buddhist and bound to be subject to false and externalist views such as eternalism, nihilism, etc etc.
As the Buddha said, those who sees Dependent Origination sees the Dharma, and those who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.
Our true nature/buddha nature, Emptiness-Luminous inseparable, is Dependent Origination.[/b]We accept the Four Noble Truths, namely duḥkha, the arising of duḥkha, the cessation of duḥkha, and the path leading to the cessation of duḥkha; and the law of cause and effect (Pratītyasamutpāda)
How do you conclude that the above quote leads to "Dependent Origination includes Rebirth too!"
It is talking about "duḥkha" -
Maybe Kalama Sutta may help.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You are missing the point. The point I made was why you take it that the way some people recommend, the things some people says, you take it as acceptable but not the way some other people recommend to you.
You said something about these people also tell you how you can do it/find out for yourself.
Well George Bush also tells you that you must accept, believe, discard all other ways and you will find out for yourself but you do not accept his way.
So the question is, what yardstick, standard do you use to determine whether or not you should test it out for yourself.
For example, there are two independent lab in the world to test particle physics discoveries and why are there two? To verify each other's findings.
Not only do you tell people what they can do to achieve the results, the results must be measurable and not dependent on the imagination of the participants.
You see what a high standard it is? Without such high standards, it is very easy to go into a delusion mode.
Please read the whole sutra at www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html
A very short excerpt (please read the whole sutra!)
..."Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.
"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."
"And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."
"Yes, lord."
"Now, what do you think, Kalamas? When aversion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."
"And this aversive person, overcome by aversion, his mind possessed by aversion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."
"Yes, lord."
"Now, what do you think, Kalamas? When delusion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."
"And this deluded person, overcome by delusion, his mind possessed by delusion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."
"Yes, lord."
"So what do you think, Kalamas: Are these qualities skillful or unskillful?"
"Unskillful, lord."
"Blameworthy or blameless?"
"Blameworthy, lord."
"Criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?"
"Criticized by the wise, lord."
"When adopted & carried out, do they lead to harm & to suffering, or not?"
"When adopted & carried out, they lead to harm & to suffering. That is how it appears to us."
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them... -
Oh btw, there are countless practitioners who verify with each other their experience and realisations. So there are not only 2.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You are missing the point. The point I made was why you take it that the way some people recommend, the things some people says, you take it as acceptable but not the way some other people recommend to you.
You said something about these people also tell you how you can do it/find out for yourself.
Well George Bush also tells you that you must accept, believe, discard all other ways and you will find out for yourself but you do not accept his way.
So the question is, what yardstick, standard do you use to determine whether or not you should test it out for yourself.
For example, there are two independent lab in the world to test particle physics discoveries and why are there two? To verify each other's findings.
Not only do you tell people what they can do to achieve the results, the results must be measurable and not dependent on the imagination of the participants.
You see what a high standard it is? Without such high standards, it is very easy to go into a delusion mode. -
Didn't you see that dependent origination and cause and effect is very clearly stated at the last part at the sentence?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:How do you conclude that the above quote leads to "Dependent Origination includes Rebirth too!"
It is talking about "duḥkha"
-
and of course there are many besides, George Bush that will swear that GOD speaks to them.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Oh btw, there are countless practitioners who verify with each other their experience and realisations. So there are not only 2. -
karma is not real. there is no past lives or whatever.
people who claim of impossible memory and these are just.... stories...
other religions have miracle stories also....
i am quite dissapointed that buddhist believes in past life and stuff.
One phrase Jumping to conclusion, something which buddhists should not commit. -
You don't see it, does not mean it does not exist.
You don't see it, of course you think it don't exists. -
So, do you accept what George said? That GOD speaks to him? You cannot see it does not mean that GOD did not speak to him? You do not see it, that is why you do not believe GOD spoke to him?Originally posted by Isis:You don't see it, does not mean it does not exist.
You don't see it, of course you think it don't exists. -
Maybe God really talk to George Bush.. in his own mind.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:So, do you accept what George said? That GOD speaks to him? You cannot see it does not mean that GOD did not speak to him? You do not see it, that is why you do not believe GOD spoke to him?
I do not know -
Then why issit you can say I do not know in some things but you do not say "I do not know" in other things and instead you believe? I am just curious hor... don't think I am cornering you... I am not saying you cannot believe... just curious.Originally posted by Isis:Maybe God really talk to George Bush.. in his own mind.
I do not know -
But logic tells you that it isn't very soundOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:and of course there are many besides, George Bush that will swear that GOD speaks to them.
But hey, you can't be sure whether there's God who spoke to George Bush, or maybe Satan or a ghost or who knows what?
Kalama Sutra is still the best!! Don't rely on people or even reports, etc etc etc (please read!)
But of course in regards to stuff like rebirth, there has been many trustworthy research done on it such as Dr Ian Stevenson's. -
catch no ball..Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Then why issit you can say I do not know in some things but you do not say "I do not know" in other things and instead you believe? I am just curious hor... don't think I am cornering you... I am not saying you cannot believe... just curious.
u think i believe or no believe ? -
I know you think that it is the best, but why issit you consider something thousand of years old as the best and not the latest advancement, research and understanding? Just curious.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:But logic tells you that it isn't very sound
But hey, you can't be sure whether there's God who spoke to George Bush, or many Satan or a ghost or who knows what?
Kalama Sutra is still the best!! Don't rely on people or even reports, etc etc etc (please read!) -
Originally posted by january:
What irony! You said "jumping to conclusion"... you yourself are jumping to conclusion due to your narrow mindedness and dogma!
karma is not real. there is no past lives or whatever.
Whereas, Buddhists are the ones who have done the experiment, experienced and seen it for themselves.people who claim of impossible memory and these are just.... stories...
They are not just mere stories! Pls check out Dr Ian Stevenson's research. You cannot just debunk it as stories because it is supported by facts.
other religions have miracle stories also....
Furthermore YOU can find out for yourself, and it is simply unfair if the Buddha provided you with the method to find out with yourself and you pass judgement without even trying to find out first, just because your current mindset and beliefs are too narrow to accept the possibility.i am quite dissapointed that buddhist believes in past life and stuff.
I am quite disappointed by your narrow mindedness
One phrase Jumping to conclusion, something which buddhists should not commit.
Thats for you. Pls be more open minded! -
You said that "you don't know" when it comes to things about George Bush but you do not say "I don't know" when it comes to say, Karma.Originally posted by Isis:catch no ball..
u think i believe or no believe ?
Why? Why is it you do not say, "Karma? I don't know". -
Whoever said I don't consider the latest advancement, research and understanding as good?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I know you think that it is the best, but why issit you consider something thousand of years old as the best and not the latest advancement, research and understanding? Just curious.
They do not contradict. But they also deal with different things. -
i got say all the above meh....................Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You said that "you don't know" when it comes to things about George Bush but you do not say "I don't know" when it comes to say, Karma.
Why? Why is it you do not say, "Karma? I don't know".
Re-edit: all above: the overall context of the above -
I am asking you a questionOriginally posted by Isis:i got say all the above meh....................
-
What about the latest advancement in human thought? Philosophy?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Whoever said I don't consider the latest advancement, research and understanding as good?
They do not contradict. But they also deal with different things. -
I think they are all good and have their values, though I have not much knowledge to comment on the modern philosophical thoughts.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:What about the latest advancement in human thought? Philosophy? -
I have seen karma but i do not fully comprehend the mechanism of karma.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I am asking you a question
George Bush matter is hearsay. Maybe God really talk to him. Maybe he lied.
Maybe he has gone crazy. Maybe not! i don't know. -
That is what I am asking you. Why is it in some things you can say "I don't know" but in others things, you do not say "I don't know" and you "use" the information/concept/belief? I am not saying that you shouldn't or that it is not wise to, just curious why you discard some info and say "I don't know" but you not others.Originally posted by Isis:I have seen karma but i do not fully comprehend the mechanism of karma.
George Bush matter is hearsay. Maybe God really talk to him. Maybe he lied.
Maybe he has gone crazy. Maybe not! i don't know.