I finally understand.
-
kitkat_, how true are your words but then can one really achieve everything by faith? Or does one need to prove and disprove certain doctrines and dogma? If certain doctrines and dogma of a religion fail, at what point must one start to denounce it?Originally posted by kitkat_:I do not understand your definition of that because in my definition I don't blame that at all, I accept that. Infact you can say faith is for the foolish.
And I if not most of the people wouldn't mind to be called a fool for having that faith. -
Let me repeat my correction to him/her on that:
Next time, don't bother replying his trolling. I'll just delete it straight awayOriginally posted by kitkat_:I do not understand your definition of that because in my definition I don't blame that at all, I accept that. Infact you can say faith is for the foolish.
And I if not most of the people wouldn't mind to be called a fool for having that faith.
BTW, faith does not have to go with ignorance. In Buddhism, faith is not blind. Just like faith in science is not blind. There must be a balance of Faith and Wisdom.
See: Are they still Buddhists without Karma and other fantastics? (Page 5), read the post on 12 October 2007 · 11:56 AM,
http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f5.htm
The Unification of Faith (s. sraddha) and Wisdom (s. prajna)
(...) -
Hi Herzog_Zwei, I believe you make your point and I know your not being harmful in anyway.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:kitkat_, how true are your words but then can one really achieve everything by faith? Or does one need to prove and disprove certain doctrines and dogma? If certain doctrines and dogma of a religion fail, at what point must one start to denounce it?
Well how true is my words that I certainly cannot tell you because it is my belief so as to say Yes I belief that one can really do achieve something with faith even if he/she were to fail at achieveing that but does that mean it is entirely a failure? The process of achieveing is through the journey not by the end of it. I belief not in self, but also in others, in the things I do and in my religion of course. So you see? My belief could be different from you, what I strongly hold may not be the same as you do?
Nope I will say one does not need to prove the doctrine at all. how do you know it failed you? How will you know if it has also failed others? We can never tell, but it is by our decsion how we view it as. Im not certainly some smart aleck or some holy person and is alike anybody, everybody even like you sometimes I do question the teaching and I do think at times how true/fasle can it be when it has been pass down for ages. How would we know if it has been altered by anyone? That we can never know but it is in our 'belief' that make us make our decision to.
Sometimes what we think/belief/feel the other person may not feel the same way as us. That's why people are just people and if they do not have a principle of their own they will tend to follow things blindy and easily. I know what I say will certainly upset alot but I admit I do not entirely 'follow 'His' teaching, but does that make me a faithless one? Who can really define you as a faithless one Herzog_Zwei? The point is I must have a reason of my own to feel this way, you must have a reason of your's and they must have a reason of theirs to feel this way. So if you follow your principles how can it fail you?
As for if it really fails you and when is the time to denounce it? Anytime, anyplace. You see the 'scripture' and 'His' teaching is dead but what is alive is in your heart.
Most importantly is to live happily through even the toughest moment. Be a good person without bringing harm to others and to help those in need when possible and lastly to appreciate the goodness your parents has brought to you. If everyone can follow as such simple as this, things won't fail you.
Just my 2 cents here.
I know you have good intention in saying that and meant no harm. What Ive just typed out is just a 'rough idea' of it. of course I do ecpect you to reciprocate all of it because you must understand it is in your decision the answer you want to bring to yourself rather then what others may bring to you. -
Hi An Eternal Now. I will take note of that. Many thanks.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Let me repeat my correction to him/her on that:
Next time, don't bother replying his trolling. I'll just delete it straight away
BTW, faith does not have to go with ignorance. In Buddhism, faith is not blind. Just like faith in science is not blind. There must be a balance of Faith and Wisdom.
See: Are they still Buddhists without Karma and other fantastics? (Page 5), read the post on 12 October 2007 · 11:56 AM,
http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f5.htm
The Unification of Faith (s. sraddha) and Wisdom (s. prajna)
(...)
-
Technically, I see all religions as wrong no matter what context they are in. (Buddhism being no exception.) As long as it is faith-based and cannot survive without faith, then it has no leg to stand on.
-
A lot of faith is invested in modern science also, no matter how you would like to deny it. But it does not necessarily mean blind faith -- because it can be tested. Same goes to Buddhism (which is also itself a science).Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Technically, I see all religions as wrong no matter what context they are in. (Buddhism being no exception.) As long as it is faith-based and cannot survive without faith, then it has no leg to stand on.
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. 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. -
I see. And I thought this was pointless from the beginning. I understand your point and where you're going.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Technically, I see all religions as wrong no matter what context they are in. (Buddhism being no exception.) As long as it is faith-based and cannot survive without faith, then it has no leg to stand on.
Your have your rational behind it and certainly your reasons. I rest my case. -
How can the concept of happiness be based on faith?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Technically, I see all religions as wrong no matter what context they are in. (Buddhism being no exception.) As long as it is faith-based and cannot survive without faith, then it has no leg to stand on.
I know how to get happiness. I know why I want happiness. I understand why certain paths lead to happiness. Therefore I have faith that I can achieve the highest-stage of happiness with correct effort.
Faith is base on understanding. Faith without understanding is just superstition.
Just like I have faith that I will not survive a 100 metre free-fall without a parachute because I understand what will happen to be the moment I make impact on the ground.
That's why I'll never assume that everything said in the sutra or by the Buddha is always correct.
We question, we understand, we believe, and we have faith. But if I question and yet can't get a satisfactory answer, I don't believe and I don't have faith. -
Dont you all notice we have all shown some of your kilesas in this debate?
Just wondering how many of us hanker after win, dont have to answer my question, ask yourself.
Alot of debate and arguement started with 2 parties wanting to win and dont want to lose face and pride.
How far have we really experience dharma, fellow buhddist, if we did experiece far enough, i believe conflicts cease to exist here. -
Do you have faith in anything before?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Technically, I see all religions as wrong no matter what context they are in. (Buddhism being no exception.) As long as it is faith-based and cannot survive without faith, then it has no leg to stand on.
Faith is essential in many things, you dont have faith, you lose nearly half the battle.
Faith serve as a source of motivation ...etc. -
X2Originally posted by cheskiz:Dont you all notice we have all shown some of your kilesas in this debate?
Just wondering how many of us hanker after win, dont have to answer my question, ask yourself.
Alot of debate and arguement started with 2 parties wanting to win and dont want to lose face and pride. -
Debates are very useful -- as I have said before, the Tibetan traditions (and some other traditions) emphasize on this aspect a lot. We can learn many good things from each other through debate.Originally posted by cheskiz:Dont you all notice we have all shown some of your kilesas in this debate?
Just wondering how many of us hanker after win, dont have to answer my question, ask yourself.
Alot of debate and arguement started with 2 parties wanting to win and dont want to lose face and pride.
How far have we really experience dharma, fellow buhddist, if we did experiece far enough, i believe conflicts cease to exist here.
Of course like anything we do, right motivation must be there and there should not be attachment to ego and the purpose is not to win but to learn.
That is why when I see the wrong motivation for posting, such as HZ (whose posts are at times not even constructive debates but pure trolling) I will delete them. -
well, just my opinion, Drinking to entertain the client, I think you can tell them that you prefer not to drink, since there are people with alcoholism. and it's important not to drink.Originally posted by annoy-you-must:With regards to that, I personally believe that the five precept are just general guidelines for us to follow, and that we should still follow it with some intelligence.
In today's coporate world, it's impossible to avoid drinking, especially since if you're entertaining your client.
In war, it's impossible to avoid killing and lying. If an enemy troop catches you, are you going to tell them the truth on where your bases are?
As in war, first of all in my opinion, if everybody keep their precept, there wouldn't be any war. There would not be any killing, because people already break their precept to kill, I'm not surprised if they break their precept to lie. But in the past until now, people have alway been engaged into war.
Namo Amitabha Buddha
Namo Avaloktiesvara Bodhisattva
Namo Mahasthamaprapta Bodhisattva -
Congradulation... you all are Buddha now since you all already understand his teaching.
Just joking.
-
The reality is, not everybody are Buddhist and not everybody keeps to their precept.Originally posted by tinybuddhist:well, just my opinion, Drinking to entertain the client, I think you can tell them that you prefer not to drink, since there are people with alcoholism. and it's important not to drink.
As in war, first of all in my opinion, if everybody keep their precept, there wouldn't be any war. There would not be any killing, because people already break their precept to kill, I'm not surprised if they break their precept to lie. But in the past until now, people have alway been engaged into war.
Namo Amitabha Buddha
Namo Avaloktiesvara Bodhisattva
Namo Mahasthamaprapta Bodhisattva
In a world where people engage in mutual harming to gain benefits for themselves, don't you find it necessary to take un-Buddhistic actions to protect yourself? -
That is why there are still alot of people suffering, the 4 noble truths, alot of people still deluded, even though i am still but, many have not have the affinity with buddhism, but in human common sense, everybody knows killing is wrong, people fight because of greeds, craving, jealousy, anger, and hatred. That is why there are buddhism, teaching of let go of attachment.Originally posted by annoy-you-must:The reality is, not everybody are Buddhist and not everybody keeps to their precept.
In a world where people engage in mutual harming to gain benefits for themselves, don't you find it necessary to take un-Buddhistic actions to protect yourself? -
Protect ourselves, for how long? That maybe explains why many chose to take 'un-buddhist' actions to continue protecting themselves. I think most of the time the truth is that we also want to gain benefits in such a way too, rather than for protection? There r loads of extreme cases n scenarios in the world, n thus all our actions must be based on wisdom, not excuses or fancy arguments which lead to no where, benifits no one, confuse many n satisfy a few egos here n there. I think we should just be mindful n pay attention to what we ourselves r doing, start from ourselves first.Originally posted by annoy-you-must:The reality is, not everybody are Buddhist and not everybody keeps to their precept.[quote]
That's too bad. But that doesn't mean it is right or that we should leave it as it is.
In a world where people engage in mutual harming to gain benefits for themselves, don't you find it necessary to take un-Buddhistic actions to protect yourself?
] -
I don't need faith. I havn't lost anything worth losing before.Originally posted by cheskiz:Do you have faith in anything before?
Faith is essential in many things, you dont have faith, you lose nearly half the battle.
Faith serve as a source of motivation ...etc.
-
I think mahawarrior is right in this area.Originally posted by annoy-you-must:The reality is, not everybody are Buddhist and not everybody keeps to their precept.
In a world where people engage in mutual harming to gain benefits for themselves, don't you find it necessary to take un-Buddhistic actions to protect yourself? -
That is interesting. No offence but do you care to share on how do you live your live without faith? How do you interact with others and that means you never trust anyone before in your life?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I don't need faith. I havn't lost anything worth losing before.
P.S Im not 'questioning' you but Im just keen to know how you did it?