Buddhism as a religion

last SG · 2011-12-15T18:38:22+00:00

1. You're saying that science has to work harder to catch up with Buddhism in understanding the natural facts of our world? Don't just assert. Prove it.What...

Jacky Woo SG

1. Medical science is able to explain how deformities are formed. This is the reason, for example, pregnant mothers shouldn't smoke.

2. Going back to my original Point (2), if I am born with a serious physical deformity, the concept of karma will strike me as grossly unfair. Why should I be made to suffer for the works of my previous lives -- over which I have no control at all?

3. If Buddhists don't eat animals because of these reasons, is eating oysters allowed? From what I've read, people can only be reincarnated into sentient creatures, and lots of shellfish are believed to be non-sentient.

wait there is a split in this issue. theravada and mahayana do you know they are different schools split up after the demise of Buddha.

Mahayana advocated vegan but its not a commandment that you must be a vegan. it is totally voluntary. as for theradava, Buddha never implemented vegetarianism. he even rejected it when a renegade disciple, his cousin, asked the Buddha to implement vegan, but he did not accepted it.

sinweiy:blue text from the POV of theravada, not mahayana. vegan is stricter than vegetarism is not advocated by Mahayana. Buddha in the end did sort of advocate it skillfully.

reasonable.atheist SG

There is no burden of proving.

As Khenpo Tsultrim Lodro said,

佛教不赞成以强硬的手段推广自己的教法。佛陀说过:不能给对佛法没有兴趣人讲经说法，不能给对大乘佛法不感兴趣的小乘修行人讲大乘佛法。佛陀认为，尊重众生的信仰或观点很重要，否则会让对方造业堕恶趣。

Buddhism does not promote its own viewpoints to those who are not receptive. The reason is that we respect your views and you are entittled to hold them.

For studying spirituality, you must have openness and a willingness to make mistakes. So what if you are a fool for believing, you will learn through the process.

I spend a lot of time debating Christians, and so far the responses in this Buddhist forum have been relatively weak. Don't get me wrong -- I think some of the core ideas of Buddhism are substantially more defensible than Christianity's, but I just don't think the Buddhist community is well-equipped to defend the religon.

Authoritative doctrine seems to be a common position here, i.e. "ABC is correct because so-and-so said so". But despite the statement by Khenpo Tsultrim Lodro, I would ask you to consider the following:

1. If you regard Buddhism as the truth, then shouldn't you attempt to share that with others -- even those who have no initial interest in it? Should an educator stop teaching math to an uninterested student?

2. If the belief in Buddhism leads to more good works and a reduction in suffering, wouldn't the propagation of the message lead to more positive karma?

3. Against the march of atheism and evangelical religion, Buddhism will become increasingly marganalised if you persist in passivity.

Amitayus48 SG

1. Medical science is able to explain how deformities are formed. This is the reason, for example, pregnant mothers shouldn't smoke.

why dun you do a survey to check with all deformed child, their mothers are smokers, past and present. in the past, most female never smoke.

this is very good example of karma. you may ask this 杜美旋居士, her brother was having the same opinion as you. He was kicked by many spirits and reported to police, and now following her sister to chant amitofo.

八月初七那一天他往生。距离他往生前三个月，三个月前就知道，那个时间、日子那么清楚，八月初七。三个月之前写的，写了十几个八月初七，预知时至！
　　
　　从他生病开始听经念佛，差不多是四年的时间。他走了，走了之后，新加坡居士林出现了一个奇怪的事情。有一天念佛堂，杜美旋居士，我以前不认识她，这个事情出来之后，杜居士来找过我。出什么事情？陈光别居士的冤亲债主，不少人，这都不是活人，是鬼魂，不少！到居士林去了，这些冤亲债主原来都在陈光别家里，但是陈光别每天听经、念佛，他们不敢动他。听经念佛有护法神，所以冤亲债主虽然在旁边围绕著，不敢动他。看到他往生了，这些冤亲债主都感动了。
　　
　　所以他们跟著法师，我们每天派法师去助念，四个人一班，轮流去，这些冤亲债主跟著法师回到居士林。他说居士林的护法神没有障碍他，他说我们到居士林来绝对不会找麻烦，我们不敢找麻烦，我们来求皈依。他说我们看到陈光别老居士往生，我们都非常欢喜，来求皈依。那个时候我正在香港，好像是全师打电话给我，说是鬼魂要皈依，我就跟他说赶紧替他皈依。http://www.bcs.edu.sg/forum/index.php?topic=509.0

An Eternal Now SG

1. Medical science is able to explain how deformities are formed. This is the reason, for example, pregnant mothers shouldn't smoke.

2. Does it make sense for someone in jail to say, 'why should I be made to suffer for my burglary last year?' He may even say 'I'm a different person now! I am no longer the same person as last year. I'm changed. I am a good man now.' But the fact is the causality has ripened and yes, he has no control over them.

3. Vegetarianism is not compulsory for Buddhists, however if you eat meat, the Buddha tells us to avoid eating meat that we have personally killed, ordered others to kill, or witnessed the killing (as an example: frozen meat is allowed as it meets these three criterias of not being killed, etc). Why? Karmic deeds are by intention - if we have no intention to kill the meat we eat, the negative karma is not formed. Karmic deeds are of three kinds: mental, speech, and bodily, but they must be intentional and volitional - and such volition may be wholesome, unwholesome, or pure. Even though it may be logically said that we are indirectly supporting the business of killing, nonetheless no direct karmic link is involved. That is why Buddha told us to eat meat only when meeting those three conditions. If you are into Mahayana Buddhism and wish to cultivate great compassion, then vegetarianism is highly recommended.

But to answer your question: oysters are sentient animals and so we should avoid eating those that are cooked alive. Likewise, try to avoid eating seafood that are ordered fresh since it means you have ordered them to be killed.

Amitayus48 SG

This I think is a fundamental issue. Because human beings have self-awareness and empathy, we are able to imagine ourselves in the shoes of other people.

are you so sure of your self-awareness and empathy level is ultimate level- can people exploit your empathy and self-awareness and make you imagine yourself in the shoes of them

Jacky Woo SG

2. If the belief in Buddhism leads to more good works and a reduction in suffering, wouldn't the propagation of the message lead to more positive karma?

3. Against the march of atheism and evangelical religion, Buddhism will become increasingly marganalised if you persist in passivity.

any religion in history that did not shed blood in the name of religion?

Dharmadhatu SG

2. If the belief in Buddhism leads to more good works and a reduction in suffering, wouldn't the propagation of the message lead to more positive karma?

3. Against the march of atheism and evangelical religion, Buddhism will become increasingly marganalised if you persist in passivity.

If you are not receptive, then there is no point debating. Besides, there has been ample sharing around.

Buddhism is not about good works. You do not understand the first thing about Buddhism. Which is what i've been trying to explain before.

It is a very remote possibility that Buddhism will become marginalised just because of some sceptical or unreceptive group.

Your disability to accept karma - you can go debate with the hindus or the many other religious groups who believe in karma. As we are not the only group who believe.

Dharmadhatu SG

karma is not equal to buddhism/dharma. Don't equate them. If a person defend karma, he is not defending Buddhism actually. you can't really attack Buddhism, because Buddhism has attacked itself very well and its final tenets are actually beyond logical attack. Within us, we have the Madhyamaka school. You can go study that. And if you can better the attacks of those panditas/scholars in that school, then u can try it here.

reasonable.atheist SG

This comment about someone being put in jail for a past crime, and the earlier thought experiment about amnesia are both very good arguments, I think.

I'll answer them in two ways:

Finally, on your last point, why do you say that oysters have sentience if they have no brain and no nervous system?

reasonable.atheist SG

any religion in history that did not shed blood in the name of religion?

I don't know. There are lots and lots of strange religions in the world.

reasonable.atheist SG

why dun you do a survey to check with all deformed child, their mothers are smokers, past and present. in the past, most female never smoke.

Are you seriously saying that birth defects do not have medical or genetic causes, but are instead caused by karma?

winsomeea SG

Females never smoke but may be the people around her smoke.

sinweiy SG

Finally, on your last point, why do you say that oysters have sentience if they have no brain and no nervous system?

there's "mind" in Buddhism. physical brain and nervous system that can be seen is science.

think.. when u touch an oyster, it retract back to their shell is what? not nervous system, ability to feel?

Dawnfirstlight SG

Are you seriously saying that birth defects do not have medical or genetic causes, but are instead caused by karma?

Have you wonder why some genetic diseases only affect some members in the family and not all of them?

Dharmadhatu SG

Are you seriously saying that birth defects do not have medical or genetic causes, but are instead caused by karma?

of course.

even having that kind of genes is also karma.

remember u said that karma is not falsifiable. So no matter what, karma can be used to explain everything and it will be used to explain everything and it in actuality explains everything.

Dharmadhatu SG

i invite you to read with an open mind this website where there are many medical related issues with karma and so forth

http://www.gloje.org/en/traces-of-liberating-beings

reasonable.atheist SG

there's "mind" in Buddhism. physical brain and nervous system that can be seen is science.

think.. when u touch an oyster, it retract back to their shell is what? not nervous system, ability to feel?

Reaction to stimulus is not necessarily a sign of sentience. The mimosa pudica and the Venus Flytrap can both react to touch, and the latter is actually carnivorous. Are these plants also sentient?

To be sure, I have argued for vegetarianism, but my rationale is clear -- the avoidance of suffering. In other words, creatures that cannot feel pain (e.g. shellfish) can be eaten under that guideline.

In any case, the issue of vegetarianism is a diversion, so we don't have to continue this line of debate.

reasonable.atheist SG

Have you wonder why some genetic diseases only affect some members in the family and not all of them?

The conditions behind the formation of a human being are extremely complex. Genetics, the quality of the sperm and egg, the nutrition to the foetus, the environment of the mother, etc. all impact the future condition of the child. Furthermore, genetic variability itself allows animals to better evolve and adapt to their environment, so mutations (both good and bad) may be relatively common in human beings.

Given that the inputs are never exactly the same, is it surprising that different members of a family have different intelligence levels, different looks, and also potentially different genetic diseases?

Again, karma is not required to answer your question.

reasonable.atheist SG

of course.

even having that kind of genes is also karma.

remember u said that karma is not falsifiable. So no matter what, karma can be used to explain everything and it will be used to explain everything and it in actuality explains everything.

Non-falsifiability is a term to describe a theory or concept that cannot be proven or disproven. It doesn't mean that the theory or concept is inherently true.

If none of these ideas can be proven or disproven, how do I know which or any of these is true?

By itself, non-falsifiability certainly does not mean that it explains everything. In fact, it is questionable whether it explains anything at all.

Jacky Woo SG

karma is very often used to explain for everything. no it is not. Buddha said Karma is much more complex than that. and not easily understood. it cannot be used to explain for everything and anything.

« Previous Page Next Page »