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

As mentioned, a belief in karma is not required for it to work.

How did Warren Buffet got to be so wealthy in the first place? It seems, his circumstances and conditions are extremely favourable that the probabilty of being such is slim. Does his generosity and empathy have a part to play in creating the conditions for such circumstances to manifest?

Assuming that past live is real, could his past incarnations exhibited the same personality trait of generosity? Could his past positive traits created his current conditons of wealth and that his current generosity extends before and beyond this current life ?

1. I'm well aware of the argument that if karma/rebirth is true, then a lack of belief makes no difference to its workings. Even if I don't believe in the theory of gravity, I still have to abide by it.

2. Instead, the point I make is that non-belief in karma actually allows greater compassion, all else being equal. When you succeed in life, you don't have a sense of entitlement; you know that you were merely more fortunate than some others.

3. As he himself pointed out, conditions were favorable. However, it is unclear that a higher power needs to be involved here. The odds of winning first prize in the lottery are very long, but almost by definition, someone will win it sooner or later. There is no need to resort to any karmic explanation beyond what is commonly known as "chance".

reasonable.atheist SG

it don't have to be Buddhist "beliefs", it's pure human ethic at work, a.k.a Truth, Universal law. it does not have to belong solely to Buddhist.

as i wrote, even if the cure advance, newer illness or complication emerges. modern development such as deforestation also bring forth new and stronger diseases(like H1N1) that we never have it before. comparing now and then, seem like not much diff.

I'll give you just one statistic.

Expectancy at birth:

By this one very simple measure, it is clear that collective well-being has improved over the years, thanks to advances in medicine and technology. People suffer from fewer diseases and are living longer, while infant mortality has been greatly reduced.

There is therefore no basis to your argument that "comparing now and then, seem like not much diff".

simpo_ SG

Hi Reasonable atheist,

I didn't intend to discuss this topic with you.

I was using the case of Warren Buffet as a case of possibilty for the general readers on the forum to ponder.

Sorry that I hijacked your thread ..

An Eternal Now SG

That's incorrect. Bhutan is known for using a Gross National Happiness as a national goal and index. This does not mean that Bhutan is the happiest country in the world.

In fact, the UN's happiness index has Bhutan at a lowly 141. Norway is ranked first, and is incidentally one of the most atheistic countries in the world.

http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/life/united-nations-announces-world%E2%80%99s-happiest-country-247768

Even in terms of self-reported happiness (aka "subjective well-being"), Nordic and European countries appear to dominate.

In addition, I suspect Bhutan will be ranked even lower if it did not have access to modern medicine and technology. So even here, it is not clear that Buddhism plays a larger role than science in driving well-being.

Just did a check... it seems there is no country other than Bhutan using GNH, and UN's index is Human Development Index, not GNH.

sinweiy SG

I'll give you just one statistic.

Expectancy at birth:

There is therefore no basis to your argument that "comparing now and then, seem like not much diff".

u have to give where it come from, not just anyhow qoute. 31 in 1900 - 2000? hmm..sceptical stat.

Life expectancy variation over time. i explain it as a temporary increase of merit of human. and this is just no including the increase of abortion rate.

if talk about longevity, there are Buddha's disciple living to 160 and 200+ years old.

The Venerable Mahakashyapa is still present in the world. When he left home under the Buddha, he was already one hundred sixty years old. At the time Shakyamuni Buddha had spoken Dharma for forty-nine years in over three hundred Dharma assemblies, Kashyapa was already over two hundred years old.

http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/149660

2000-3000 years ago should be around 80-100.

sinweiy SG

allows greater compassion? that's when one is more fortunate? how about those unfortunate ones? they would think, where got equal?

sound like those god religion, where it is god's will, that one 's fortunate or unfortunate.

An Eternal Now SG

Actually there is no argument that technology improves standard of living and promotes well being (people rather be living well than starving or dying). However, that doesn't change the fact that none of these have anything to do with awakening and permanent liberation from suffering and mental afflictions, and the attainment of the highest bliss of nirvana, which are all achievable in this life.

In other words both are important to men's well-being, but only dharma leads to the ultimate well-being, freedom, and happiness.

Dharmadhatu SG

Hi, can you elaborate a little more on this Limitless-Oneness? What actually does it refer to?

Thanks :)

Sorry, i didn't mention but that is a quote, the source is here:

http://www.originalpurity.org/gurulin/efiles/b0/b0072.html

Fugazzi SG

A religious belief is n never (was) a statement about Reality (relative to what is or not is), but a mere hinting, a mere clue about something that is a mystery, which is beyond the grasp of the human mind. To put it another way, a religious belief can be likened to a finger pointing to a moon n some religious ones never get beyond or transcend this ’’studying’’ of the finger. Some are engaged in ’’sucking’’ on it. Others worse still use the finger to gouge their ’’eyes’’ out. The latter can be likened to be bigots whom (organized) religion has blinded seeing. Eyes are a faculty, seeing is n art! The rare ones are indeed religionists who sufficiently detach from the finger to see what it is indicating(what is manfesting from the unmanifest_ — these are those…; having gone beyond belief, who are ’’evolving’‘

Till something becomes a reality (existential) in one’s living, one’s mere talking about, it amounts to lying. It is merely constipating with concepts and knowledge. Knowing is transformaing …. a river flowing, knowledge is a pond – stagnant and turning smelly. Teh latter may avail oneself to confuse psychological or social relevancy with/equate it as existential relevancy.

reasonable.atheist SG

Just did a check... it seems there is no country other than Bhutan using GNH, and UN's index is Human Development Index, not GNH.

Only Bhutan uses the term GNH, but AFAIK its quantitative measurements overlap with the UN's methodology.

reasonable.atheist SG

u have to give where it come from, not just anyhow qoute. 31 in 1900 - 2000? hmm..sceptical stat.

Life expectancy variation over time. i explain it as a temporary increase of merit of human. and this is just no including the increase of abortion rate.

if talk about longevity, there are Buddha's disciple living to 160 and 200+ years old.

http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/149660

2000-3000 years ago should be around 80-100.

reasonable.atheist SG

allows greater compassion? that's when one is more fortunate? how about those unfortunate ones? they would think, where got equal?

sound like those god religion, where it is god's will, that one 's fortunate or unfortunate.

Let me ask you the same question I posed to someone else above:

All else being equal, are you more likely to help X or Y?

reasonable.atheist SG

In other words both are important to men's well-being, but only dharma leads to the ultimate well-being, freedom, and happiness.

You keep arguing that karma will also lead to increased well-being, but you cannot explain the tangible ways in which well-being will improve in the absence of technology.

The best you can do, I think, is to suggest that natural disasters will simply stop happening, and that illnesses will abate if everyone devotes themselves to Buddhism. In other words, you have to insist on an active role for karma in manipulating and modifying other natural laws. That will lead to a whole host of other problems.

Otherwise, without technology, there is simply no mechanism for well-being to improve to any significant level, even if everyone starts devoting themselves to Buddhism. This alone should suggest that karma's contribution to well-being is extremely limited, if at all present.

winsomeea SG

ummm . . ... . How reasonable is this atheist? A normal human being knows nobody can stop natural disaster.

Another troll, faultfinding TROLL!

Fugazzi SG

@reasonable.atheist
How is one to ever get ’’answers’’ lah, when it is premised on logic, on concepts – it is being a squirrel in a cage.
Eg Buddha’s 8-fold….. was a consequence of his being empty not the other way around.

Dawnfirstlight SG

You keep arguing that karma will also lead to increased well-being, but you cannot explain the tangible ways in which well-being will improve in the absence of technology.

If humans go against nature, nature will go against us. This is the law of nature (karma). Though today's technology is very advance but humans have gone against nature in many ways to achieve high technology. The end result is natural disasters which are happening every now and then.

Listen to this nice & meaningful rap song below. "We are nothing 四大皆空". This song is trying to tell us that humans claim that we can do wonders with today's technologies but when natural disasters strike us, we then realise we are nothing at all, we are at the mercy of the unknown which is karma.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHhA43L0qxE

reasonable.atheist SG

ummm . . ... . How reasonable is this atheist? A normal human being knows nobody can stop natural disaster.

Another troll, faultfinding TROLL!

If you're not able to follow the debate, I suggest you try to retrace the arguments carefully.

If I were a troll, I would be the most self-defeating troll in the world, given the amount of time and effort I take to research and reply to people here.

sinweiy SG

it's 200+, not 2000+. and i have even longer one, but it's too unbelievable to say.

Abortion mean babies dying before the age of 1. yea, they are not consider as life.

3. it's recorded in scriptures as evidence though.

sinweiy SG

Let me ask you the same question I posed to someone else above:

All else being equal, are you more likely to help X or Y?

don't quite understand the point in the question, hence no one answer. previously as in previous life? karma is more complicated than simple linear approach. previous good deed can still reapen first, when given the right conditions, to someone that's bad and vise verse.

seeds + Conditons of sunlight, soil, water = reapen.

no conditions = no reapen.

it's not for us now to worry about the seeds we planted previously. more important is now, don't plant it for the future and stop the conditions of greed, hatred and folly.

we have our more effective way of teaching unconditional compassion/loving kindness toward others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett%C4%81

the aim is non-discrimination. we should help both. u? u only help the victim? don't care about the bad ones?

wl_t SG

Here's a thought experiment that I just developed, which I want to pose to all of you.

Let's assume that you've become the supreme leader of the world, and you have to make recommendations for the lives of five billion people. Say you have only two choices:

(a) Recommend that they become scientists.

(b) Recommend that they pursue the truths of Buddhism.

Let's say that, whichever your choice, these five billion people excel at their given roles.

A hundred years pass.

------------------

Depending on your choice, I suggest these will be your outcomes:

(a) Five billion scientists

These five billion scientists make wonderful progress in science, bringing about new methods of countering natural disasters. Cancer has been cured, while genetic engineering means that birth defects and diseases have been completely eradicated. We have new, sustainable ways of using our resources, ensuring the future survival of our planet.

On average, life is substantially better for everyone. There is less poverty and hunger, fewer diseases, and so on.

(b) Five billion earnest, devout Buddhists

These five billion Buddhists build up a great deal of positive karma. A few of them actually achieve enlightenment, while the majority of others are able to build up good karma for future lives.

However, the progress of science has halted. We continue to suffer from incurable diseases as we do today. Earthquakes and tsunamis continue to afflict us. We still do not have the means to sustain a population of seven billion.

-----------------

So here's the dilemma:

Conversely:

To show that karma and rebirth is true, you have to demonstrate a reasonable way in which the second group will lead much better and more comfortable lives than the first group. Feel free to poke holes in my scenarios, if I've grossly misunderstood some of the concepts.

But let's try not to appeal to the mysterious, and say that these are just things we don't understand. Look at this scenario logically, and tell me how we can explain the contradictions.

This is also not a far-fetched scenario. Science has made our lives substantially better. The Internet, for example, has brought knowledge and empowerment to us in the developed countries, but also people in poor ones. The genetic engineering of crops has enabled us to feed billions of people, many of whom would otherwise starve.

Then coming back to the first question: If you were the supreme ruler, and assuming you only had two options, would you recommend science or Buddhism?

Recommend Buddhism first and then Science.

Science is a double edged sword. After 100 years, there might be proliferation of nuclear arms, outbreak of new viruses created synthetically by rogue scientists/funded by rogue nations etc.

If Buddhism is properly practiced, all 5 billion people's collective karma would improve - there would be less hotspots in the world, no nuclear arms race. Science would be put to good use, not destructive use.

« Previous Page Next Page »