Planning the Demise of Buddhism
-
Originally posted by octacon:
I do notice that those Xtians like selling / peddling chinese medicine ages ago. They target houseshold that hang fengshui stuff outside. I can't wait to pwned them when they visit my house again trying to sell their god. When they tried to sell their god to us buddhist , they show no respect to us and their religion.
If your god is real , why not sell to your natural rival (mus___) , and see what kind of response you get from them?
Will guard my kids from those christians too and send my kids to buddhist school so that they will mix with the right people (say no to free christian tuition <- they always use free tuition as an excuse to lure kids into bible studies)
when i was young i also attended free tuitions given by christians. i very happy tot got free, cos my family not that rich. but i also went off with my friends before the praying or whatever start, after the tuition!
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
There are no conflicts between Buddhism and science and irreligionist.
Science cannot tolerate Buddhism as it is a religion. -
Buddhism is Buddha's teachings...it is just teachings so how to become a religion?
-
ya, Buddhism is teachings, not a religion from the start. surely you hang out here long enough to know this right??
-
All these talks about the Dharma-ending age...isn't it a bit like accepting the fact that the acceptance of Dharma is going to end soon instead of trying to do something to change it?
While I do know that everything does has to come to an end sooner or later, isn't just as bad to accept the demise of something without making positive efforts to change the fact?
At least in Singapore, I do not witness much efforts in propagating the Dharma that is strong enough to combat the aggressiveness of other religion. The most we see is just the opening of a few grand monestry...
-
Originally posted by annoy-you-must:
All these talks about the Dharma-ending age...isn't it a bit like accepting the fact that the acceptance of Dharma is going to end soon instead of trying to do something to change it?
While I do know that everything does has to come to an end sooner or later, isn't just as bad to accept the demise of something without making positive efforts to change the fact?
At least in Singapore, I do not witness much efforts in propagating the Dharma that is strong enough to combat the aggressiveness of other religion. The most we see is just the opening of a few grand monestry...
I think it is not buddhism's style to evangelise because it is not trying to win converts from the start like 2000+ years ago. It is neither comparing with anyone and should not be comparing with any other religions too. Spiritual practice is always from one's own will and nobody can force another. We always think that because more people are joining christianity means that buddhism is getting less followers, but actually we are not even comparing from the start. For other religions they want to win converts then let them win, but at the end of the day who benefit most is the main thing. You can convert millions of people on earth but if people just convert for the sake of converting and not really practicing spritually, then what does it goes down to?
Even in buddhism, i wouldnt even say some people who label themselves ' buddhist' are considered buddhists at all. They do all kinds of unwholesome actions but anyway we shouldnt care. You join a religion not to see statics or find a companion. You follow a religion to improve your dealing with life. If you join a religion just because it is 'in' or 'fun', then it really goes down to 0.
Religions are just man made. Real nature do not belong to any religion at all. It is because of human nature that we group ourselves into different types and conflicts happen. Woud you agree with me that christians and buddhist both have to eat, sleep, drink, get sick and die one day?
If someone has destiny with buddhism, he/she will automatically follow the path of buddhism. We dont have to distribute pamplets or interest people to make them join buddhism. And even if we try brining them to temple, if they dont like it means they dont like. No way out . If we brainwash them to join buddhism, thats incorrect either. They have to realize it themselves. When someone is destinied to be brought forward to listening the dharma, the forces of nature will be strong. Agressors who try to prevent this will find it ineffective. You cannot and will never destruct the force of nature.
-
Originally posted by maggot:
Buddhism is Buddha’s teachings…it is just teachings so how to become a religion?
then how did jesus' teaching become religion? -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Science cannot tolerate Buddhism as it is a religion.Nope, Science has no problems and contradiction with Buddhism.
-
Originally posted by annoy-you-must:
All these talks about the Dharma-ending age...isn't it a bit like accepting the fact that the acceptance of Dharma is going to end soon instead of trying to do something to change it?
While I do know that everything does has to come to an end sooner or later, isn't just as bad to accept the demise of something without making positive efforts to change the fact?
At least in Singapore, I do not witness much efforts in propagating the Dharma that is strong enough to combat the aggressiveness of other religion. The most we see is just the opening of a few grand monestry...
The purpose of telling us about the dharma ending age is not for us to 'accept fate', and anyway fate is a concept foreign to Buddhism, though we can make predictions just like weather forecasters make prediction of when the rain will fall.
The purpose of telling us about the dharma ending age is so that we can practice even harder and make the dissemination of dharma last even longer.
Just like the purpose of forecasting hurricane is not just for us to sit there idle, 'waiting the fate of the hurricane to come' and kill us. If anything, the dharma ending age should be treated as a wake up call and inspire earnestness in practice.
As for the efforts to spread the dharma, I agree more should be done. In fact there is never an 'enough' in this world of samsara. To a true bodhisattva, he only rests in Nirvana after all sentient beings in samsara is saved. As long as one sentient being remains, the Bodhisattva does not rest. Till then, expedient means are skillfully applied to cause all sentient beings to wake up to the nature of reality.
It does not mean he is not liberated while appearing in samsara, he is still equally liberated -- he is in the nirvana of no abidance. He never grasps on samsara nor nirvana, and sees all experience as having one taste, just like the ocean full of waves and a waveless ocean are all just made of water.
A bodhisattva goes through the same life experiences, the same waves as us, but knows that all are h2o, all experiences in life are self-liberating, empty and luminous. All are the manifestation of Buddha Nature. Usually we experience life dualistically -- i.e. there is an "I" as an experiencer of a "world" out there, and this wrong perception is what causes all our sufferings. But if all experiences are perceived correctly as the One Reality incorporating causes and conditions -- that alone is liberation, is Nirvana. And the self-shimmering, self-liberating manifestation of our nature continue to manifest and subside like waves due to the winds (conditions), does not end there...
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Nope, Science has no problems and contradiction with Buddhism.
There are many problems and contradiction with Buddhism.Karma doesn't agree with science that every effect can have a cause or no cause at all.
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
There are many problems and contradiction with Buddhism.Karma doesn't agree with science that every effect can have a cause or no cause at all.
Since when did science state that effects can have no cause at all? Even 'random events' are not causeless... -
Originally posted by annoy-you-must:
Since when did science state that effects can have no cause at all? Even 'random events' are not causeless...Exactly. :) Every action has a reaction. Basic scientific law.
-
The credibility of a religion lies in how well the original teachings from the founder is preserved, and does the system opens itself to possible corruption.
In Buddhism, the original words of the Buddha were well preserved in the Sutras. Buddhist Sutras were compiled by the original disciples of Buddha from the sermons they heard directly from the Buddha. There is no room for infiltration of the non-original since these were crossed verified. There can be no addition, change or modification to the original Sutras and from generation to generation it is the same Sutra that passes down.
In Christainity, the content of the Bible is decided by a committee or council of authority. What were included and what were excluded in the Bible was decided by human. One of their agenda is to control the mind of the fellowers and to make the Churches utmost powerful. They tell you to donate 10% of your salary to your church and have absolute faith in God. Even if God failed you, it is a test of your faith.
One thing I cannot stomach until this day is how could Abraham had the heart to sacrifice his only son just to show God that he had faith in him. Why would God ask a man to sacrifice his own son? To show that no other possession is more worthwhile than God?
Absolute power opens itself for downright corruptions.
As history unfolds itself, there will be many unhidden truths unveil.
This is no an attack to Christainity. We all have our reasons to be in a religion.
-
Originally posted by Caitaokue:
The credibility of a religion lies in how well the original teachings from the founder is preserved, and does the system opens itself to possible corruption.
In Buddhism, the original words of the Buddha were well preserved in the Sutras. Buddhist Sutras were compiled by the original disciples of Buddha from the sermons they heard directly from the Buddha. There is no room for infiltration of the non-original since these were crossed verified. There can be no addition, change or modification to the original Sutras and from generation to generation it is the same Sutra that passes down.
In Christainity, the content of the Bible is decided by a committee or council of authority. What were included and what were excluded in the Bible was decided by human. One of their agenda is to control the mind of the fellowers and to make the Churches utmost powerful. They tell you to donate 10% of your salary to your church and have absolute faith in God. Even if God failed you, it is a test of your faith.
One thing I cannot stomach until this day is how could Abraham had the heart to sacrifice his only son just to show God that he had faith in him. Why would God ask a man to sacrifice his own son? To show that no other possession is more worthwhile than God?
Absolute power opens itself for downright corruptions.
As history unfolds itself, there will be many unhidden truths unveil.
This is no an attack to Christainity. We all have our reasons to be in a religion.
Because the Lord of Abraham told him to sacrifice his son to Him, and thus because Abraham was faithful he did what he was told. Abraham was viewed as heroic for doing such an act.And heres the contradiction. People of other religions who do sacrifices are consisdered pagan and evil because they kill innocent. How about Abraham himself? Didnt he tried sacrificing his innocent son too? And if people argue the lord has ordered him to do so and he is acting in the will of God, how bout other people of other religions who might as well listen to their gods too? In a sense, nobody who sacrifice innocents can be justified as heroic and good, and nobody who sacrifice should be deemed and insulted by people of other religion. Afterall, none is innocent.
-
Originally posted by Caitaokue:
One thing I cannot stomach until this day is how could Abraham had the heart to sacrifice his only son just to show God that he had faith in him. Why would God ask a man to sacrifice his own son? To show that no other possession is more worthwhile than God?
Absolute power opens itself for downright corruptions.
I dont think this is the only incidence of human sacrifice in the Bible. I remember reading about a warrior who promised God that he will sacrifice the first person he meets at home if God would grant him victory over his enemies. It transpired that he won the war and annihilated his enemies... and as it turns out the first person who greeted the victorious warrior is none other than his own daughter! So he did fulfil his promise to God and sacrificed her.There are alot other things I cannot stomach in the Bible as well... but I do not wish to turn this into a Christianity bashing thread.
-
The vital key to defence is The Da Vinci Code,courtesy of Dan Brown
-
And hence a fertile land for terrorism and the concept of Jihad was twisted to serve the purpose of human evils.
Anything that commands absolute yield to supreme power is dangerous.
-
Originally posted by annoy-you-must:
All these talks about the Dharma-ending age...isn't it a bit like accepting the fact that the acceptance of Dharma is going to end soon instead of trying to do something to change it?
While I do know that everything does has to come to an end sooner or later, isn't just as bad to accept the demise of something without making positive efforts to change the fact?
At least in Singapore, I do not witness much efforts in propagating the Dharma that is strong enough to combat the aggressiveness of other religion. The most we see is just the opening of a few grand monestry...
my friend who is around 24 years old is actively in a buddhist committee, taking part and organizing activities. there is still a steady pool of young buddhists in spore. i think its cos of the nature of buddhism of not being assertive and aggressive, thus it is being perceived as we are not doing anything to solve the issue. if we are aggressive, then what is the difference of us with the christians?
i think our main difference is that we will not push further to the topic if the other party is not interested. this is respect to the other party. it is fate that he or she is willing to accept or not.
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
There are many problems and contradiction with Buddhism.Karma doesn't agree with science that every effect can have a cause or no cause at all.
i read enough of the threads here to know that karma teachings is that there is a law of cause and effect. Every cause there will be effect. -
Originally posted by jacqn:
i read enough of the threads here to know that karma teachings is that there is a law of cause and effect. Every cause there will be effect.
and i know that it is the truth in the real world such a theory is not true else, the world would have been wiped out long ago. -
Originally posted by wilsonhao:
Because the Lord of Abraham told him to sacrifice his son to Him, and thus because Abraham was faithful he did what he was told. Abraham was viewed as heroic for doing such an act.And heres the contradiction. People of other religions who do sacrifices are consisdered pagan and evil because they kill innocent. How about Abraham himself? Didnt he tried sacrificing his innocent son too? And if people argue the lord has ordered him to do so and he is acting in the will of God, how bout other people of other religions who might as well listen to their gods too? In a sense, nobody who sacrifice innocents can be justified as heroic and good, and nobody who sacrifice should be deemed and insulted by people of other religion. Afterall, none is innocent.
My reading of Abraham's account of sacrifice seems to me as an abrogration of human/child sacrifice that had existed among the tribes that Abraham belongs to. It is a step forward of subsitution from blood surrender to spiritual surrender.
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
and i know that it is the truth in the real world such a theory is not true else, the world would have been wiped out long ago.
The world did got wiped out long ago. In fact should be many times round, through cylces of destroying and reforming...I once saw a BBC science documentary on this as well. Very well produced.
-
I happened to come across a website of a Dharma talks given by Master Husan Hua in 1958 in America, which touched on the topic of protecting Buddhism. Here are some excerpts from his speech:
We should realise that it is not only the Bhikshus, Bhikshunis who are responsible for promoting Buddhism. It is the responsibility of every Buddhists. If each and everyone of us can take up the responsibilty, how can we worry that Buddhism will not thrive? But now, there are some Buddhists who think Buddhism is not as fashionable as other religions, so they don't dare to tell anyone they are Buddhists.
In fact, they even agree with others that Buddhism is mere superstition, isn't that pathetic? For example, there is a non-Buddhist group at Daofeng Shan in Jiulong( Hong Kong) which specializes in accepting Buddhist monks and nuns. After they become adjusted, they forgot their roots and actually slander Buddhism.
People who truly believe in Buddhism would rather die than change their faith. We should pluck up our courage, and not let our resolve waver even if others make fun of us or tempt us. If every Buddhists remembers that he is a Buddhist, Buddhism will naturally prosper again. Although other religions may experience temporary prosperity, the way of Heaven is a cycle, and when one extreme is reached, things turn around. No one shoud let their resolve be influenced by superficial signs of prosperity or decline. The truth is never extinguished, the flourishing of Buddhism depends on everyone's hard work!
-
Originally posted by annoy-you-must:
Since when did science state that effects can have no cause at all? Even 'random events' are not causeless...
Then tell me what is/are the cause/s for a pulsar to form or a blackhole to form. -
Originally posted by cycle:
The world did got wiped out long ago. In fact should be many times round, through cylces of destroying and reforming...I once saw a BBC science documentary on this as well. Very well produced.
Then how did this world form?