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...

reasonable.atheist SG

Jacky Woo, I'm just paraphrasing Dharmadhatu, who said:

"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."

Emphasis mine. Let me know if I've misunderstood your point, Dharmadhatu.

An Eternal Now SG

Translator's note: Some people have interpreted this sutta as stating that there are many experiences that cannot be explained by the principle of kamma. A casual glance of the alternative factors here — drawn from the various causes for pain that were recognized in the medical treatises of his time — would seem to support this conclusion. However, if we compare this list with his definition of old kamma in SN 35.145, we see that many of the alternative causes are actually the result of past actions. Those that aren't are the result of new kamma. For instance, MN 101 counts asceticism — which produces pain in the immediate present — under the factor harsh treatment. The point here is that old and new kamma do not override other causal factors operating in the universe — such as those recognized by the physical sciences — but instead find their expression within those factors. A second point is that some of the influences of past kamma can be mitigated in the present — a disease caused by bile, for instance, can be cured by medicine that brings the bile back to normal. Similarly with the mind: suffering caused by physical pain can be ended by understanding and abandoning the attachment that led to that suffering. In this way, the Buddha's teaching on kamma avoids determinism and opens the way for a path of practice focused on eliminating the causes of suffering in the here and now.

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove Monastery, the Squirrel's Feeding Place. There Moliyasivaka the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama, there are some priests & contemplatives who are of this doctrine, this view: Whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before. Now what does Master Gotama say to that?"

[The Buddha:] "There are cases where some feelings arise based on bile.[1] You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on bile. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on bile. So any priests & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I say that those priests & contemplatives are wrong."

"There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the change of the seasons... from uneven[2] care of the body... from harsh treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any priests & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I say that those priests & contemplatives are wrong."

When this was said, Moliyasivaka the wanderer said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to point out the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life."

See also: MN 101; "Kamma and the Ending of Kamma" in The Wings to Awakening.

An Eternal Now SG

reasonable.atheist: like I said, you cannot prove karma scientifically, at least not now

You can only find it out from meditation.

But if you haven't done meditation, the only thing you can do is get acquinted with buddhism, learn the teachings of Buddha, and then decide yourself whether it is reasonable to have faith in that guy.

To me it is reasonable because Buddha is like a scientist - whatever he teaches, he does not demand blind faith (but some reasonable faith to actually practice what he taught) and teaches us systematically how to experience everything he experienced. Of course, that, plus I have personally experienced stuff he taught in my life including the apparently but not actually elusive 'awakening' (not saying I'm a Buddha yet though)

Dawnfirstlight SG

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.

May be it is more difficult to prove karma but rebirth is already scientifically proven. However, many people like you refuse to accept the fact. Dr. Ian Stevenson had done many research on rebirth to prove it. If rebirth is scientifically proven, karma can also said that it is scientifically proven.

You may search "Dr. Ian Stevenson" at yahoo. Besides him, there are other scientists doing the same research till today. There's a book written by a Christian doctor about reincarnation. The book was based on true cases which he came across when he was treating his patients.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

sinweiy SG

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.

u not shellfish, how u know? try salt or burning, it's pain from their reaction i say.

ps: we are into intention as karma, not say plant no sentience, one can use ill intentions to destroy. that ill intentions is to be advoided. even when tearing a piece of paper. )

reasonable.atheist SG

u not shellfish, how u know? try salt or burning, it's pain from their reaction i say.

ps: we are into intention as karma, not say plant no sentience, one can use ill intentions to destroy. that ill intentions is to be advoided. even when tearing a piece of paper. )

Before questioning whether shellfish can feel pain, have you attempted to run some quick Internet research?

I've done my fair share of that, and the consensus seems to be some of the "simpler" animals cannot feel pain. Here's a quote:

Nociceptive nerves, which preferentially detect injury-causing stimuli, have been identified in a variety of animals, including invertebrates. Indeed, the leech and sea slug are classic model systems for studying nociception. However, it is believed that invertebrates are capable only of stimulus-response reactions and lack the necessary brain system that vertebrates have to process pain.

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/culture2.html

I'll make two bigger points:

Intentions are irrelevant here, I think. I have no bad intentions towards anything I eat, be it meat or vegetable. It's not personal -- I'm only concerned about satisfying my taste and hunger.

Dharmadhatu SG

Jacky Woo, I'm just paraphrasing Dharmadhatu, who said:

"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."

Emphasis mine. Let me know if I've misunderstood your point, Dharmadhatu.

you have understood my point, you have only not accepted my point... haha.

But i did not draw my conclusion of "it in actuality explains everything" from the fact that it is non-falsifiable. So in that regard, u r mistaken.

This statement is from my own opinion and perception of phenomenon. I do not need rely on the axioms of philosophy or science to decide what works for me or any evaluation. I am a simple person i guess. But as everyone has their own perception, u r welcome to keep yours.

Dharmadhatu SG

Before questioning whether shellfish can feel pain, have you attempted to run some quick Internet research?

I've done my fair share of that, and the consensus seems to be some of the "simpler" animals cannot feel pain. Here's a quote:

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/culture2.html

I'll make two bigger points:

Intentions are irrelevant here, I think. I have no bad intentions towards anything I eat, be it meat or vegetable. It's not personal -- I'm only concerned about satisfying my taste and hunger.

So if someone anesthetized you, you will let him eat you, cos you feel no pain?

2009novice SG

So if someone anesthetized you, you will let him eat you, cos you feel no pain?

oh... this is good example

2009novice SG

Before questioning whether shellfish can feel pain, have you attempted to run some quick Internet research?

I've done my fair share of that, and the consensus seems to be some of the "simpler" animals cannot feel pain. Here's a quote:

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/culture2.html

I'll make two bigger points:

Intentions are irrelevant here, I think. I have no bad intentions towards anything I eat, be it meat or vegetable. It's not personal -- I'm only concerned about satisfying my taste and hunger.

Intentions are irrelevant here, I think. I have no bad intentions towards anything I eat, be it meat or vegetable. It's not personal -- I'm only concerned about satisfying my taste and hunger.

Intentions are important... even science can prove shellfish feel no pain, we shouldn't eat them just to satisfy our craving. Compassion is heavily emphasized in Buddhism. That's why intentions cannot be neglected or ignored.

If this topic is just purely about science, then it must not be linked or tied together with Buddhism to make it sound irrelevant/dogmatic whatsoever. Buddhism is more than that.

2009novice SG

-irrelevant to scientific post-

Story of Guangmu in Dizang sutra- Her mother was fond of eating fish roe, tortoise eggs

(can fish/tortoise eggs feel pain???)

To cut the story short, Guangmu's mother fell into depths of hell and suffered for her bad karma....

sinweiy SG

Before questioning whether shellfish can feel pain, have you attempted to run some quick Internet research?

I've done my fair share of that, and the consensus seems to be some of the "simpler" animals cannot feel pain. Here's a quote:

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/culture2.html

I'll make two bigger points:

Intentions are irrelevant here, I think. I have no bad intentions towards anything I eat, be it meat or vegetable. It's not personal -- I'm only concerned about satisfying my taste and hunger.

so "it is believed that ..." they think they are sure.

as mentioned in Buddhism , there's "mind" or consciousness, which i don't think can be tested by science, at least not yet. science are more physical vs buddhism are more mental per se. it's not just about pain.

i searched Insects also cannot feel pain or so they think/believe. Buddhism also avoid killing them. yet they are sentient too.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_insects_feel_pain

Insects cannot feel pain. This is because an insects nervous system is directly connected to the muscular system, and not to the brain.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_insects_feel_pain#ixzz1gzZ4Huqc

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_insects_sentient

"Certainly not in the same sense as human beings. You could say that they have "insect nature", and perhaps even "Buddha Nature". But they are not sentient."

This answer seems to contradict itself.....

"Certainly not in the same sense as human beings" on one hand and then "But they are not sentient." on the other......

Maybe the answer should have been - "yes they are sentient, but not in the same sense as human beings." - but this also is not satisfactory because obviously they are not the same as human beings.

Therefore the answer should be an emphatic "yes they are sentient" because the meaning of the word "sentient" is defined as "Experiencing sensation or feeling." which implies they have to have a nervous system, which they have, although rudimentary compared with ours.

also look into the meaning of sentience in Buddhism:-

Sentience in Buddhism is the state of having senses (sat + ta in Pali, or sat + tva in Sanskrit). In Buddhism, the senses are six in number, the sixth being the subjective experience of the mind. Sentience is simply awareness prior to the arising of Skandha. Thus, an animal qualifies as a sentient being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Sentient beings is a technical term in Buddhist discourse. Broadly speaking, it denotes beings with consciousness or sentience or, in some contexts, life itself.^[1] Specifically, it denotes the presence of the five aggregates, or skandhas.^[2] While distinctions in usage and potential subdivisions or classes of sentient beings vary from one school, teacher, or thinker to another—and there is debate within some Buddhist schools as to what exactly constitutes sentience and how it is to be recognized^{[citation
needed]}—it principally refers to beings in contrast with buddhahood. That is, sentient beings are characteristically not enlightened, and are thus confined to the death, rebirth, and sufferingcharacteristic of Saṃsāra.^[3] However, Mahayana Buddhism simultaneously teaches (in the Tathagatagarbha doctrineparticularly) that sentient beings also contain Buddha-nature—the intrinsic potential to transcend the conditions of samsara and attain enlightenment, thereby becoming a Buddha.^[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_beings_(Buddhism)

ps: no ill intention is good eventually. hence with such notion, southern and tibetan Buddhists eat (pure) meat.

btw, in order to eat the meat, there would have an intention of killing it. intention of killing is difficult not equal to bad intention.

reasonable.atheist SG

See also: MN 101; "Kamma and the Ending of Kamma" in The Wings to Awakening.

Sorry for the hiatus. Let's get down to some responses, shall we?

*Takes a deep breath*

1.Karma or bile?
In Christian counter-apologetics, there is an argument called the "God of the Gaps", which is used to explain how the concept of God is used to explain fewer and fewer phenomena, as the realm of science expanded over time. For example, ancients thought that lighting and thunder were caused by a God, until we understood the science. Now Christians move on to other yet-unexplained phenomenon, hoping to fill those gaps with God.

Likewise, your anecdote of "karma or bile" is an example of this fallacy. In the past, probably many kinds of ailments were deemed to be caused by karma. These days, more of it is being understood within the realms of medical science, so the role of karma gets reduced even more. As we progress into a world of genetic engineering and terraforming, you begin to wonder: How small will the role of karma become?

2. "Walk with me for a bit, and you'll understand in time."
Virtually all religions will make the same request you did: You may not believe it at first, but listen/meditate with an open heart, and you'll eventually see the light.

I have two problems with this. First, it is a win-win situation for you. If I do walk with you and eventually dismiss the idea of Buddhism/Christianity/Islam, the evangelist will simply say that I was not sincere enough. That places all the responsibility of accepting the faith on me, and none of your beliefs are put to the test.

Second, as Caesar put it: Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Men will generally believe what they want to believe.

"Faith" can be immensely powerful, which is why there are Buddhists and Christians and Muslims. But the fact that many believe in something does not make it any truer. If our objective is to find the truth, and not merely what is comfortable, then there must be other standards we aspire to. I submit that reason and evidence-based inquiry remain the only methods we know of uncovering the truth. And we seem to agree, the evidence for karma is extremely limited at this point.

reasonable.atheist SG

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

Rebirth is very far from being scientifically "proven".

I haven't had the opportunity to read Dr. Stevenson's books, but I've seen excerpts and abstracts of his writings, digested similar papers from others (many of which are from the division he headed), and read critiques of his work. Here's a summary of three of major problems.

1. Lack of rigor. While interviews and observations can be a valid scientific method, there is a lack of scientific rigor in Stevenson's work. For example, because he often worked with translators, he was not in a position actually evaluate the quality of the accounts. One of his books was originally rejected by the publisher because Stevenson's interpreter was found to have been dishonest. There were also other problems, such as the possibly of contamination. e.g. a girl who was able to sing in a foreign language might have heard and learnt the song over the radio.

2. Non-falsifiability and confirmation bias. When an account is found to coincide with actual events, Stevenson regards it as being a confirmation of rebirth. But when the account is found to be wrong, it may be regarded as a fantasy, and is not found to count against the idea of rebirth. This is related to the problem of a confirmation bias, where the scientist is eager to find examples that confirm his hypothesis. Here's an example:

'He was fond of cases that seemed to beg for a paranormal explanation. For example, one case involved an Idaho girl who at age 2 would point to photographs of her sister, dead from a car accident three years before she was born, and say "that was me." The believer thinks the two-year-old meant: "I was my sister in a previous life." The skeptic thinks she meant: "That's a picture of me." The skeptic see the two-year-old as making a mistake. The believer sees her as trying to communicate a message about reincarnation.'

http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html

3. Inconsistency with the Buddhist concept of reincarnation.

Stevenson (1983) published a paper entitled "American Children Who Claim to Remember Previous Lives". The abstract states that American children who claim previous lives usually "speak about the lives of deceased members of their own families". Indian children, on other hand, talk about memories of a previous life in a different family or community.

http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Abstract/1983/12000/American_Children_Who_Claim_to_Remember_Previous.6.aspx

If we assume for one moment that Stevenson's concept of rebirth is true, how does it gel with the Buddhist concept of reincarnation? Not very well, I think. Why would Americans get reborn more as Americans, while Indians are reborn more from other communities? You may appeal to mystery, and say that the workings of karma are unknowable. But I have a better answer: The study suggests that the accounts of karma are a cultural construct. It differs depending on the norms of each society. And if it is a cultural construct, it cannot be a natural law.

I know this is a long reply, and you may not read it all. But my takeaway point is this: Stevenson's work is disputed, and -- as far as I can see -- not taken seriously by most other scientists. Reincarnation is very far from being scientifically proven.

Fcukpap SG

Buddhism is beyond classification of religion....it merely transcends the trap of Godliness

reasonable.atheist SG

So if someone anesthetized you, you will let him eat you, cos you feel no pain?

Let's unpack this question a little bit. I will offer two criteria here:

1. Moral criteria: Does the creature suffer? When we talk about suffering as a criteria, I am using Bentham's beautifully-written argument:

"The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

Note that Bentham talks not just of suffering as a criteria; he also blurs the line between humans and animals.

To be sure, we are talking not just of physical suffering, but also mental suffering. We are talking about not just of the suffering of the direct victim (the creature that is being slaughtered for the table), but also others that might be affected by the slaughter.

2. Economic criteria: Does the creature have utility? With farm-bred cattle or poultry, the concept of contribution or utility doesn't usually come in. But with human beings, an economic argument applies as well. To put it in strictly utilitarian terms, the survival of a 20-year-old Einstein-level genius is likely to be more beneficial that that of a 90-year-old person with diminished limited mental capacity.

With these in mind, if the following conditions were true:

If these conditions were true, then maybe I'll say: "Yes. Eat me."

reasonable.atheist SG

Double-post

Fcukpap SG

we could simply deconstruct the elements of water as H2O....

but what makes water water?

let the varieties of human experience define it...

Fcukpap SG

one cannot transform reality without eating it...

thats the crux...

sinweiy SG

nay, that's your perception only. we don't see science contrading to buddhism, on the contrary, it's helping to understand or explain Buddhism even more clearly. the more science advance the more it corresponds to Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science

Buddhism and Science - How Buddhism agrees with Science

http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/science.htm

Indeed, if there is an article of faith among many present-day Buddhists, it's that the more science discovers, the better scientific knowledge harmonizes with Buddhism. For example, it appears that teachings on evolution and ecology -- that nothing is immutable; that life forms exist, adapt and change because they are conditioned by environment and other life forms -- fits nicely with the Buddha's teaching on Dependent Origination.

and a whole lot of scientists agreed, including Albert Einstine, see search:-

http://sg.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Axt7wneme_ZOTF4ApIIj4gt.;_ylc=X1MDMjExNDcwODAwMwRfcgMyBGFvAzEEZnIDeWZwLXQtNzEyBGhvc3RwdmlkA21QQWtwQnQ3d2lQU1dSdmhUb3NJUGhJRTNQOENhVTcyZTZZQUFXam4Ebl9ncHMDMARuX3ZwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2NpZW5jZSBidWRkaGlzbQRzYW8DMQR2dGVzdGlkA1NNRVNHMDI-?p=science+buddhism&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-712&meta=fl%3D0%26vc%3D&rd=adv

http://purifymind.com/BS.htm

perhaps u must have tot that karma is about the belief that all happiness and suffering, including all future happiness and suffering, arise from previous karma, and human beings can exercise no volition to affect future results (Past-action determinism), BUT this is wrong view or incorrect understanding of karma.

science is more on randomism, which is also wrong view or incorrect to us.

Incorrect understandings of karma in the early sutras

In Buddhism, karma is not pre-determinism, fatalism or accidentalism, as all these ideas lead to inaction and destroy motivation and human effort. These ideas undermine the important concept that a human being can change for the better no matter what his or her past was, and they are designated as "wrong views" in Buddhism. The Buddha identified three:

Karma is continually ripening, but it is also continually being generated by present actions, therefore it is possible to exercise free will to shape future karma. P.A. Payutto writes, "the Buddha asserts effort and motivation as the crucial factors in deciding the ethical value of these various teachings on kamma."^[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism

« Previous Page Next Page »