One can't prove that God but science makes God unnecessary
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
:)
By the way a month ago I wanted to find out what Ven Hui Lu thought about evolution... and I searched very long, finally found it.
Then very funny.... just nice I click "Play" on the Ven Hui Lu DVD passed to me then instantly is talking about that exact part.
http://blog.fo.ifeng.com/article/14407657.html���万象。】
è¿™ 个森罗万象就是一法所包容，就是性空，当体就是空。简å�•è®²ï¼šæ£®ç½—万象；诸ä½�ï¼�佛陀讲的空的æ€�æƒ³æœ‰å‡ ä¸ªå±‚é�¢ï¼Œæœ‰å‡ 个层é�¢ï¼šç¬¬ä¸€å±‚å°±æ˜¯å› ä¸ºç”Ÿç�，刹那生ç�，所 ä»¥ï¼Œä½›é™€è®²ç©ºï¼›å› ä¸ºæ˜¯ç¼˜èµ·ã€�æ�¡ä»¶æ‰€æž„æˆ�çš„ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥ï¼Œä½›é™€è®²ç©ºï¼›å› ä¸ºæ˜¯æ— å¸¸æ³•ï¼Œä¸‡æ³•éƒ½æ˜¯æ— å¸¸æ³•ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥ï¼Œä½›é™€è®²ç©ºã€‚æ‰€ä»¥ï¼Œç©ºæœ‰å¾ˆæ·±çš„å�«ä¹‰ï¼Œç©ºæœ‰å¾ˆæ·±çš„å�«ä¹‰ã€‚简å�• 讲：空就是é€�视相的ä¸�实在性；空就是é€�视相的没有永æ�’性；空就是é€�è§†ç›¸ä¸Šçš„æ— å¸¸æ€§ï¼›ç©ºå°±æ˜¯é€�视相的刹那å�˜åŒ–性。所以，佛陀告诉我们：微细的å�˜åŒ–，本身就是 一ç§�苦。这一å�¥è¯�，很有智慧的人æ‰�能讲出。微细的å�˜åŒ–，其实是一ç§�苦，这是佛陀在《阿å�«ç»�ã€‹è®²çš„ã€‚ä½ æ³¨æ„�观察这个天地万物，山也会å�˜é«˜ï¼Œå› 为æ�¿å�—çš„è¿�动。 所以，这个山，有的山æ¯�年都在长高，æ¯�年都在长高，æ¯�年都在长高……对ä¸�对？æ¯�年都在长高。地ç�ƒå®ƒæœ‰æ�¿å�—è¿�动，è¬å¦‚说è�²å¾‹å®¾æ�¿å�—ã€�欧亚æ�¿å�—ç‰ç‰è¿™äº›æ�¿å�—è¿�动，所以，推挤的能é‡�，山就会å�˜é«˜ã€‚有一个徒弟问说：师父ï¼�那陆地到底怎么æ�¥çš„？我说：陆地就是ç�«å±±å–·å‡ºæ�¥çš„，碰到海水å‡�结，它就一直喷一直喷。所以，包括现在的å¤�å¨�夷，å¤�å¨�夷Hawaii 它 æ¯�一年喷出æ�¥çš„岩浆，碰到海水，冷å�´äº†ï¼Œå�ˆå¢žåŠ 了土地。所以，我们现在的这个土地，其实就是由地壳å�˜åŠ¨æ�¥çš„ã€�ç�«å±±å–·å‡ºæ�¥çš„，冷å�´ä¸‹æ�¥çš„，ç»�è¿‡å‡ äº¿å¹´çš„é£Ž 化，å�˜æˆ�äº†åœŸå£¤ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è¿™æ ·æ�¥çš„。大海的生命怎么æ�¥çš„？大海的生命，里é�¢çš„生物是怎么æ�¥ï¼Ÿå°±æ˜¯å› 为大海ã€�这个海水冲刷了岩石，这个岩石里é�¢æœ‰æ°¨åŸºé…¸ã€�有蛋白 è´¨ã€�æœ‰ç”Ÿå‘½çš„åŸºæœ¬å…ƒç´ ï¼›ç¢³ã€�æ°¢ã€�é’™ã€�é“�ã€�氨基酸ã€�蛋白质。所以，海水冲刷了这个矿物，å�˜æˆ�矿物质，å�˜æˆ�了氨基酸ã€�è›‹ç™½è´¨ï¼Œé˜³å…‰ä¸€ç…§å°„çš„æ—¶å€™ï¼Œå› ç¼˜å…·è¶³ï¼Œåˆ¹ 那之间å�˜æˆ�äº†ç”Ÿç‰©ï¼Œå¾®ç”Ÿç‰©ï¼Œç”Ÿå‘½å°±æ˜¯è¿™æ ·æ�¥çš„。
所 以，有一个人看了佛ç»�就说：师父ï¼�我看了一本佛ç»�，他说：人是由光音天æ�¥çš„ï¼Œå› ä¸ºå�ƒåˆ°é‡�的东西，所以，飞ä¸�èµ·æ�¥ï¼Œå› æ¤å°±ç•™åœ¨åœ°ç�ƒã€‚我这一段实在是看ä¸�懂ï¼� 我说：哎呀ï¼�很简å�•ï¼�外太空的陨石夹带ç�€äººç±»èº«ä¸Šçš„å…ƒç´ ï¼Œæ’žå‡»åˆ°è¿™ä¸ªåœ°ç�ƒï¼›æ’žå‡»åˆ°è¿™ä¸ªåœ°ç�ƒï¼Œå››ã€�五å��亿年å‰�，没有这个动物ã€�没有这个æ¤�ç‰©çš„ã€‚è¿™ä¸ªå…ƒç´ ï¼Œç”Ÿ å‘½çš„å…ƒç´ ï¼Œå› ç¼˜å…·è¶³çš„æ—¶å€™å°±å�•ç»†èƒžï¼Œå�•ç»†èƒžï¼Œé‚£ä¸ªæ—¶å€™æ˜¯æ²¡æœ‰æ°§çš„世界。诸ä½�ï¼�五å��亿年ã€�å››å��亿年å‰�的天空，看起æ�¥å®Œå…¨æ˜¯ç�«çº¢è‰²ï¼Œç�«çº¢è‰²ï¼�æ˜¯ä¸ºä»€ä¹ˆï¼Ÿå› ä¸ºæ˜¯CO2的世界，就是二氧化碳，ç�«çº¢çš„世界。那么，由一ç§�藻类分，一直排出æ�¥åˆ¶é€ è¿™ä¸ªæ°§ï¼Œåˆ¶é€ è¿™ä¸ªæ°§……æµ·ä¸çš„è¿™ä¸ªè—»ç±»åˆ¶é€ è¿™ä¸ªæ°§ï¼Œè¿™ä¸ªæ°§æ…¢æ…¢åœ°æ…¢æ…¢åœ°æ°”å€™æ”¹å�˜ï¼Œæ…¢æ…¢è¿™ä¸ªæ”¹å�˜ï¼Œæ…¢æ…¢è¿™ä¸ªæ”¹å�˜ã€‚所以，我们现在看到的天空，为什么是è“�è‰²çš„å‘¢ï¼Ÿå› ä¸ºæœ‰O2ï¼Œå› ä¸ºæ˜¯å……æ»¡ç�€æ°§æ°”，充满ç�€æ°§æ°”，所以，我们看到的天空是è“�色的，是è“�色的。
Is there an English translation?
-
No not really... he basically interpreted it in line with modern scientific understandings I think.
What race are you just wondering? U're from Singapore right? -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No not really... he basically interpreted it in line with modern scientific understandings I think.
What race are you just wondering? U're from Singapore right?
I am local Singaporean. Race? Human. Ethnic group is Chinese but my Chinese not that good. Sidetrack a bit. The concept of race has no biological basis at all. Our so-called skin colours aee all different shades of the same pigment called melanin. -
Originally posted by sinweiy:
yeah, indeed a good point! even now mating of two totally different species to produce a new species is out of the question, i think. u cannot mate a cat and a dog. they think that the split happen long time ago. but i think even now we cannot produce a "real" split....the example of the mule that is the product of horse and donkey is just like european human marrying an asian to produce an eurasian. as their geno are similar. in short u cannot mix/mate two different geno. not now, then not before too(?). hmm.
in term of mutation like example when a species no longer needed their tail in their living, and through time, they become shorter is ok with me.
/\
I do not believe that cats and dogs split longer. I believe cats have always been cats and dogs have always been dogs. They were created to reproduce after their kind, just like the Bible says. You can mix tiger and lion because they are of the same "cat" kind. I have no problem with mutations at all. Mutations are copy mistakes in DNA. They introduce errors in pre-existing DNA but this does not answer the question of where the DNA comes from.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
A real scientist is someone who makes statement based on tested and proven scientific research findings. Not based on one's beliefs and myths. Evolution is based on science, not beliefs and myths.
Pardon me but I think your view above is rather naive and does not entirely reflect reality. I suppose you have never heard of Thomas Kuhn's paradigm of science?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
And specifically which part of partiples-to-man evolution is based on science?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
yea Liger is same as mule. like human of different color can. Ven ShenKai mentioned that things can be "�得" by yourself. He also wish to return to �得 some science stuff.
The Evolution of Life on Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2_6cqa2cP4
45billion yrs compress into 24 hrs.
quite a few of suddenly appear. the Eukaryotic cells reminded me of
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/425491
narration quote: "..animal life Suddenly erupt in an explosion of inventiveness...plant begin to appear follow by land mammals....first wing insects appear...retiles dominates ...dinosaurs suddenly vanish..." within few "minutes" apes split to old world monkeys....before midnight human emerge.
seems like they are more into chicken come first. lol. i am more into rebirth as a transition between two life forms and the agreement of mutation of geno, which could be the result of karma i think.
/\
Note that the magic words used by evolution scientists are "appear, arise" but they do not explain the mechanisms as to how. Such words simply gloss over the insurmountable obstacles from nonliving matter to living things, from simple cells to complex organisms. Time, being the hero of the plot, is simply credited with the powers to do the impossible, given enough time.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
This is where I find that it is incoherent, if we were all originally Buddha that would mean an enlightened stage to begin with, or Nirvana. So how come the downward evolution to ignorance?
in the Shurangama sutra, it's states that
知è§�立知è§� to establish knowing on top of knowing，å�³æ— 明本 is the root cause of not knowing/ignorance；知è§�æ— çŸ¥è§� Knowingness without knowingness，斯å�³æ¶…槃 is the cause of Nirvanaï¼Œæ— æ¼�真净 without overflow is true pureness.
Not knowing and enlightenment complement each other. so we are like lost Buddhas, who had forgotten the way only.
when enlightened Master Hui Neng left the world, he said:-
"When one realised one's True Nature, then all sentient beings are Buddhas. But if one looses one's True Nature, then all Buddhas are sentient beings." – Hui Neng
Buddhas and sentient beings are a totality. Buddha can be like the Moon while the reflections of the moon on the water Everywhere is like sentient beings. Both are totality. so there's neither saying of second, as the reflections are from the moon. no up down ward in the perspective of Buddhahood.
or imagine a tree with all the leaves growing from nothing to something then it fall off and disappear. then new leaves start to grow again. u can say leaves appearing are sentient being come about and falling/disappearing of the leaves are sentient beings attaining Buddhahood, given that we have stretched time to the life span of a leaf. new leaves will keep coming, and old leaves with keep falling. within a cycle, there's also a forward motion of an end, yet not so much of an end. everything return to an emptiness truth. and The tree itself is the truth of dharmakaya.
ditto.
universe is amazing, when u can find truth/quality in some thing small, u can find truth/quality in something big, its part of 'logic' or quantum physic.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I do not believe that cats and dogs split longer. I believe cats have always been cats and dogs have always been dogs. They were created to reproduce after their kind, just like the Bible says. You can mix tiger and lion because they are of the same "cat" kind. I have no problem with mutations at all. Mutations are copy mistakes in DNA. They introduce errors in pre-existing DNA but this does not answer the question of where the DNA comes from.
in line, i kind of see a Parallel line, if u cannot join the two line now, u can't join them way back then. (unless there's a "break" in terms of rebirth, then man can be any kind of animal, etc and vise verse.)
in Buddhism, it's like peeling an onion, peel to the end, empty. so Buddha say don't ask too much, where what why about the origin of universe etc. one disciple who had great powers also want to find out how big is the universe, but flew and flew but never can he find the edge! Buddha said that we are like a person who is shot by a poison arrow, keep wanting to look for the culprit. u don't want to look for a cure, u go and look for the culprit! by then it's too late.
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
in the Shurangama sutra, it's states that
知è§�立知è§� to establish knowing on top of knowing，å�³æ— 明本 is the root cause of not knowing/ignorance；知è§�æ— çŸ¥è§� Knowingness without knowingness，斯å�³æ¶…槃 is the cause of Nirvanaï¼Œæ— æ¼�真净 without overflow is true pureness.
Not knowing and enlightenment complement each other. so we are like lost Buddhas, who had forgotten the way only.
when enlightened Master Hui Neng left the world, he said:-
"When one realised one's True Nature, then all sentient beings are Buddhas. But if one looses one's True Nature, then all Buddhas are sentient beings." – Hui Neng
Buddhas and sentient beings are a totality. Buddha can be like the Moon while the reflections of the moon on the water Everywhere is like sentient beings. Both are totality. so there's neither saying of second, as the reflections are from the moon. no up down ward in the perspective of Buddhahood.
or imagine a tree with all the leaves growing from nothing to something then it fall off and disappear. then new leaves start to grow again. u can say leaves appearing are sentient being come about and falling/disappearing of the leaves are sentient beings attaining Buddhahood, given that we have stretched time to the life span of a leaf. new leaves will keep coming, and old leaves with keep falling. within a cycle, there's also a forward motion of an end, yet not so much of an end. everything return to an emptiness truth. and The tree itself is the truth of dharmakaya.
ditto.
universe is amazing, when u can find truth/quality in some thing small, u can find truth/quality in something big, its part of 'logic' or quantum physic.
/\
1. The sutra you cited, can you explain more? The idea of a lost Buddha is IMO an oxymoron.
2. The quotation by Hui Neng is interesting. Can you explain further what is true nature and how it can be lost?
3. Re the tree analogy. Programmed in the DNA of every seed-bearing tree is the ability fo the seed to grow into a full blown tree. Trees shed their leaves in season. See http://creation.com/autumn-leaves-fall-by-design It is ironic that you would use something that is evidence of design but yet failed to acknowledge the existence of the Designer, and even think fit that the Creator should be consigned to irrelevance.
4. Yes, the universe IS amazing! I can fully agree with that. It reflects the omnipotence and omniscience of the Creator. And yes, one can also use the earthly things to illustrate spiritual truths, the Bible does that many times.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
in line, i kind of see a Parallel line, if u cannot join the two line now, u can't join them way back then. (unless there's a "break" in terms of rebirth, then man can be any kind of animal, etc and vise verse.)
in Buddhism, it's like peeling an onion, peel to the end, empty. so Buddha say don't ask too much, where what why about the origin of universe etc. one disciple who had great powers also want to find out how big is the universe, but flew and flew but never can he find the edge! Buddha said that we are like a person who is shot by a poison arrow, keep wanting to look for the culprit. u don't want to look for a cure, u go and look for the culprit! by then it's too late.
/\
I think the point is that what we know in empirical science agrees with what the Bible has already stated i.e. living things reproduce after their kind. Or put it in another way, if we start with the Bible, and then use the information God provided us to look at the world, we would expect to see living things reproduce after their kind, and that's exactly what we see!
I find the Buddhist notion of "don't ask too much" problematic and ironic seeing that it is about being enlightened and dispelling ignorane. I suppose it wouldn't be wrong to say that Buddhism would be considered a science-stopper since much have been invested to examine and unravel the origins of the universe.
Re the poison arrow analogy again. It would be fallacious to argue that either you look for the cure or you look for the culprit. I would say why not do both? Depending on the circumstances, I would suggest that you get yourself cured, and go find that culprit and bring him to justice.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I think the point is that what we know in empirical science agrees with what the Bible has already stated i.e. living things reproduce after their kind. Or put it in another way, if we start with the Bible, and then use the information God provided us to look at the world, we would expect to see living things reproduce after their kind, and that's exactly what we see!
I find the Buddhist notion of "don't ask too much" problematic and ironic seeing that it is about being enlightened and dispelling ignorane. I suppose it wouldn't be wrong to say that Buddhism would be considered a science-stopper since much have been invested to examine and unravel the origins of the universe.
Re the poison arrow analogy again. It would be fallacious to argue that either you look for the cure or you look for the culprit. I would say why not do both? Depending on the circumstances, I would suggest that you get yourself cured, and go find that culprit and bring him to justice.
the analogy is about priority only, not fallacious to me as it's more important to look for the Cure then the culprit. u cannot do both, as time is of most crucial at that particular moment. bringing him to justice is another thing.Bible also got tell people not to be too smart what. the fool entering the heaven's gate? the smart will think twice? In Buddhism when one become enlightened to one's true nature, everything will be know. aka Omniscient.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. The sutra you cited, can you explain more? The idea of a lost Buddha is IMO an oxymoron.
2. The quotation by Hui Neng is interesting. Can you explain further what is true nature and how it can be lost?
3. Re the tree analogy. Programmed in the DNA of every seed-bearing tree is the ability fo the seed to grow into a full blown tree. Trees shed their leaves in season. See http://creation.com/autumn-leaves-fall-by-design It is ironic that you would use something that is evidence of design but yet failed to acknowledge the existence of the Designer, and even think fit that the Creator should be consigned to irrelevance.
4. Yes, the universe IS amazing! I can fully agree with that. It reflects the omnipotence and omniscience of the Creator. And yes, one can also use the earthly things to illustrate spiritual truths, the Bible does that many times.
u haven't learn Mahayana, even more "oxymoron". denying both extremes is the way Buddhism breaks up one's extreme views, so one do not attach to either extreme.
it's thought to be lost due to delusion but not really lost. imagine, a deluded/forgetful person looking for his hat/glasses, but actually the hat or glasses is still on his head. never lost in the first place, just deluded.
haha, my amazing is from True Nature and from an Enlightened Being POV.
Pure Land Buddhism:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism
cannot be too brief, wait misleading./\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
the analogy is about priority only, not fallacious to me as it's more important to look for the Cure then the culprit. u cannot do both, as time is of most crucial at that particular moment. bringing him to justice is another thing.Bible also got tell people not to be too smart what. the fool entering the heaven's gate? the smart will think twice? In Buddhism when one become enlightened to one's true nature, everything will be know. aka Omniscient.
/\
If it is a mattet of priority, then why was it made into an issue of relevance and then set aside as irrelevant? It is one thing to say that finding the cause is not first priority, it is quite another to say that finding or knowing the cause is irrelevant and does not matter anyway. Can you point out the exact verse in the Bible that tells people not to be smart? BTW, I think your understanding of omniscient is off. If being enlightened means being omniscient, then how can there even be ignorance? Did people start off with ignorance or enlightenment? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If it is a mattet of priority, then why was it made into an issue of relevance and then set aside as irrelevant? It is one thing to say that finding the cause is not first priority, it is quite another to say that finding or knowing the cause is irrelevant and does not matter anyway. Can you point out the exact verse in the Bible that tells people not to be smart? BTW, I think your understanding of omniscient is off. If being enlightened means being omniscient, then how can there even be ignorance? Did people start off with ignorance or enlightenment?
as there are people who like to keep asking stupid questions, like why like this, why like that?. so the analogy is to give that person a wake up call. wise questions/koan in Buddhism are ok, but not stupid/useless ones.
Buddha was just not interested in discussion about retrospect knowledge but the introspect insight is more important. in layman term, your upbringing, your moral is more important than one who know a lot but no morality etc.
i only recall, maybe mix up with rich. "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." or "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"
but Bible got say something related to the chinese expression that say "
�明�被�明误the smarter you are, the more easily you can fool yourself."?
in Buddhism cleverness, knowledge is different from wisdom. cleverness is link with egolistic and selfishness. wisdom is link with humbleness and loving kindness.
ignorance is not so correct word. NO need to Know is better. if u sort of compare a wise old man and a young teen/child, the teen will be more agitated while the old man is more calmer and more let go state. teen ask a lot, seek the answer, but the wise old man no need to ask, as he already know more from experience. the wise old man is more enlightened than the teen. yet there's a sense of no need to know as He know All per se. when Buddha was enlightened, He recalled all his past lifes, hence He know ALL and a lot from experience. the Buddha is like the wise old man and the unenlightened are like the teen/child as we forgotten our past lifes.
/\
-
Later u kena charged "allegation" then u know...
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
u haven't learn Mahayana, even more "oxymoron". denying both extremes is the way Buddhism breaks up one's extreme views, so one do not attach to either extreme.
it's thought to be lost due to delusion but not really lost. imagine, a deluded/forgetful person looking for his hat/glasses, but actually the hat or glasses is still on his head. never lost in the first place, just deluded.
haha, my amazing is from True Nature and from an Enlightened Being POV.
Pure Land Buddhism:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism
cannot be too brief, wait misleading.Dilgo Khyentse wrote:
"Vast unoriginated self-luminous wisdom space is the ground of being - the beginning and the end of confusion. The presence of awareness in the primordial state has no bias toward enlightenment or non-enlightenment. This ground of being which is known as pure or original mind is the source from which all phenomena arise. It is known as the great mother, as the womb of potentiality in which all things arise and dissolve in natural self-perfectedness and absolute spontaneity."/\
1. I am aware of the main Buddhist division between the Theravada and Mahayana, the question is, which version is what the Buddha actually teach? I think the Theravada Buddhism sees itself as closest to what Buddha taught, though I believe this is complicated by the fact that what Buddha taught was only written down 500 years later. The Mahayana actually came a few hundred years later. And the issue is not whether a view is extreme, but whether the view is true. Problem is that we too easily attached a negative connotation to the word "extreme" and frown upon it.
2. A person who forgot he has his glasses on is not deluded, but forgetful. There is a big difference between being deluded and being forgetful.
3. Pure Land Buddhism is in the same division of Mahayana, and thus I think point 1 above applies here as well.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
as there are people who like to keep asking stupid questions, like why like this, why like that?. so the analogy is to give that person a wake up call. wise questions/koan in Buddhism are ok, but not stupid/useless ones.
Buddha was just not interested in discussion about retrospect knowledge but the introspect insight is more important. in layman term, your upbringing, your moral is more important than one who know a lot but no morality etc.
i only recall, maybe mix up with rich. "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." or "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"
but Bible got say something related to the chinese expression that say "
�明�被�明误the smarter you are, the more easily you can fool yourself."?
in Buddhism cleverness, knowledge is different from wisdom. cleverness is link with egolistic and selfishness. wisdom is link with humbleness and loving kindness.
ignorance is not so correct word. NO need to Know is better. if u sort of compare a wise old man and a young teen/child, the teen will be more agitated while the old man is more calmer and more let go state. teen ask a lot, seek the answer, but the wise old man no need to ask, as he already know more from experience. the wise old man is more enlightened than the teen. yet there's a sense of no need to know as He know All per se. when Buddha was enlightened, He recalled all his past lifes, hence He know ALL and a lot from experience. the Buddha is like the wise old man and the unenlightened are like the teen/child as we forgotten our past lifes.
In what sense is asking about the issue of origins a stupid question? Or a stupid issue for that matter? If that is really the case, then it must be concluded that a lot of scientists are asking stupid questions and answering stupid questions.
Both verses that you quoted from the Bible have nothing to do with what we are talking about. The first verse is talking about how riches can deter someone from seeking God. The second verse is saying that God works differently from what the world thinks. The world thinks that great accomplishments must be done through great display of feats and marvel. But God uses the suffering servant on a despised cross to accomplish the great feat of salvation.
But on what basis do you conclude that there is no need to know about origins? Surely the fact that this question is often asked belies its importance? Again it can be suspect that the refusal to answer may not be because there is no need to know as claimed, but because one doesn't know in fact.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Later u kena charged "allegation" then u know...
Sorry, to whom were you referring to and charged over what allegation?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Sorry, to whom were you referring to and charged over what allegation?
i'm talking to Moderator Sinweiy, not you
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. I am aware of the main Buddhist division between the Theravada and Mahayana, the question is, which version is what the Buddha actually teach? I think the Theravada Buddhism sees itself as closest to what Buddha taught, though I believe this is complicated by the fact that what Buddha taught was only written down 500 years later. The Mahayana actually came a few hundred years later. And the issue is not whether a view is extreme, but whether the view is true. Problem is that we too easily attached a negative connotation to the word "extreme" and frown upon it.
2. A person who forgot he has his glasses on is not deluded, but forgetful. There is a big difference between being deluded and being forgetful.
3. Pure Land Buddhism is in the same division of Mahayana, and thus I think point 1 above applies here as well.
yes, forgetful also can, no different that true nature is "originally" present. but one is blind to see it even, when one is told, IS deluded.more important is the teaching of wisdom, not the person who is authorized to say it's true.
四�法 Four Reliance Principles
1.�法��人Rely on the Dharma, not on the people who expound it.
2.ä¾�义ä¸�ä¾�è¯Rely on the meaning of the sutras, not just on the words.
3.�智��识Rely on the wisdom, not on the perception.
4.�了义����了义�Rely on the complete explanation, not on the provisional one.said Buddha.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
In what sense is asking about the issue of origins a stupid question? Or a stupid issue for that matter? If that is really the case, then it must be concluded that a lot of scientists are asking stupid questions and answering stupid questions.
Both verses that you quoted from the Bible have nothing to do with what we are talking about. The first verse is talking about how riches can deter someone from seeking God. The second verse is saying that God works differently from what the world thinks. The world thinks that great accomplishments must be done through great display of feats and marvel. But God uses the suffering servant on a despised cross to accomplish the great feat of salvation.
But on what basis do you conclude that there is no need to know about origins? Surely the fact that this question is often asked belies its importance? Again it can be suspect that the refusal to answer may not be because there is no need to know as claimed, but because one doesn't know in fact.
yeah, they/scientists are "extra curriculum" in Buddhism. u know who ur parent or ancestors are already, their name, then? it doesn't make u a better person. so i was saying, Buddha rather teach you to be a better person. knowledge is different from wisdom and well-being. knowing to swim, does not make one a great swimmer, and if they have no practice or jump into the water to swim. moreover, know to swim is one thing, but do u help others? Buddha is teaching one to swim and save people!
/\
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
i'm talking to Moderator Sinweiy, not you
which part? was just clarification of misunderstanding only. :)/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
yes, forgetful also can, no different that true nature is "originally" present. but one is blind to see it even, when one is told, IS deluded.more important is the teaching of wisdom, not the person who is authorized to say it's true.
四�法 Four Reliance Principles
1.�法��人Rely on the Dharma, not on the people who expound it.
2.ä¾�义ä¸�ä¾�è¯Rely on the meaning of the sutras, not just on the words.
3.�智��识Rely on the wisdom, not on the perception.
4.�了义����了义�Rely on the complete explanation, not on the provisional one.said Buddha.
/\
If you tell the person that the glasses is on him and he still denies it, I don't think he is deluded, I think he is crazy! Again one can be deluded but not crazy.
I think the issue is also whether the teaching itself is true. A church pastor can be "authorised" to teach the Bible but he can still teach falsehoods which can be exposed by a "lay" person who reads his Bible diligently.
And in the case of Christianity, the messenger IS the message! The teachings of Jesus cannot be separated from His person. Apart from Christ there is nothing to teach. One cannot teach the truth about Christianity and ignore the person of Christ, though you can do that with Buddhism.
-
God is redundant to me. i can live without God.
-
Originally posted by troublemaker2005:
God is redundant to me. i can live without God.
I read this thread, I shake my head...
BroInChirst, I see your interest to know more, but your micro scruntiny is going around in circles.
sinweiy, and other Dhamma bros., remember that before Buddha gave an exposition, he will survey the audience before he expounds. For this case, keep on the surface or stick to one topic. Because BroInChrist have so many doubts and queries in his head; and we move on to another concept, making it worst.
So many points are taken out of context by BroInChrist making it "wrong".