Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by Pachomius, Mar 20, 2007.
look at all the ego. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The original scientists were those who figured out the relationship between plants and seeds. Perhaps even sex and babies, or something prior even to that.
Whatever religion they might have held to, if any, is pure speculation and serves a purpose only in wondering what they attributed that relationship to.
the 4 noble truths are the main pillars for most buddhists but there are many types of buddhism wich tend to gravitate around those truths in some way.
quote from some site
"there is Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism, Yogacara Buddhism and Vajrayana Buddhism but it is all Buddhism and it all has the same taste - the taste of freedom. Buddhism has evolved into different forms so that it can be relevant to the different cultures in which it exists. It has been reinterpreted over the centuries so that it can remain relevant to each new generation. Outwardly, the types of Buddhism may seem very different but at the centre of all of them is the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. All major religions, Buddhism included, have split into schools and sects. But the different sects of Buddhism have never gone to war with each other and to this day, they go to each other's temples and worship together. Such tolerance and understanding is certainly rare"
try not to lay down when your dying try to die while standing up or sitting up and keep a clear focused mind without fear (it is supposed to skip the bardo journey or phase)
Buddhism & Science
There are many Buddhists who are scientists, being one myself.
I'd go as far to say that Buddhism is the best 'religion' (way of life) for a scientist!
As His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama (HHDL) says if science finds anything wrong with Buddhism, it will change.
Buddhism is really a 'Science of the Mind' as HHDL also says.
He has many formal & informal discussions with scientists.
There are many science graduates I know in our Buddhist Sangha.
Examples of famous Buddhists scientist of top of my head are: Mathieu Richard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthieu_Ricard), Alan B Wallace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Wallace)
Have a look at this : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/science-religion_n_1654264.html
'Albert Einstein once pointed out that Buddhism was the tradition that he felt fulfilled the criteria he thought necessary for a spiritual path adapted to the twentieth century'
My wife is a Buddhist and she insists that it is not a religion because it requires no belief in supernatural things like gods and reincarnation. (Although it also does not insist that one not believe in them.) She says that from her perspective the essence of Buddhism is a search for truth, and therefore it embraces science which is also a search for truth.
I think that's a fairly common point of view among American Buddhists.
True enough, I never met a Buddhist living in Asia who didn't consider Buddha a god or who didn't believe in ghosts and supernatural things. Buddhism translated in the West is completely different from how it operates in Buddhist nations.
I was a close friend of one of only two Lamas in the U.S. from ever dining in their Cafe in New Hamburg, NY, which they later gave up, for reason unknown, but it did bring them out of their temple in nearby Wappingers and more into the public, who could identify them by their robes.
So, we’d talk, his bodyguards retreating, while being served by the more personable Buddha Girls who wore regular clothes and exuded great joy and happiness. It’s not that any one person knows everything, but their outlook seemed to work to some extent.
It’s not so much that ‘nature’ got it wrong, for we are nature and the continuing unfoldment of the one big event of the universe, whether it is real or taken as not real, for a difference that makes no difference is no difference.
Of course the whirlpool taken as the self is not separate and permanent, but just longer lasting than some whirlpools in a stream, and still utilizing metabolism to take things in and fairly dependent on what has come before and what the vision of the future has us doing in the present.
Some humans will ever manage to bring in the spiritual and such things as rebirth, even in several realms.
That things are ever changing, to me, is not a cause for dissatisfaction, for that is the way of all, but some people and some Buddhists might take it as reason to throw out the whole smash, the good with the bad, for the nature of one makes necessary the other, and so they are ever joined.
As in good science, they are after the reality that reality is, and not especially the that is re-presented in the brain, but, of course, the internal reality is all we have, and so I wouldn’t completely throw out the baby with the bathwater.
On good thing is to suppose what is right. For example, both I and a Buddhist would pick up litter because it was the right thing to do, not because someone or God might be watching.
So, anyway, the Great Lama would always give me a ‘high five’, and even if it was raining I would tell him that it was still sunny on the inside.
As for dealing with troubles by noting that they are not real, one can seem to remove oneself from the center stage of the drama or trauma, taking a place way further back in the audience. reducing one’s part more to witnessing than being right on stage, even going on to let it pass right on by, through not latching on to it.
So, all is still real, but I suppose it is not to some since what happens is the continuation of the big event of the universe, the one and only cause of all that unfolds.
While dining with the Lama, I showed him a newspaper headline about the very close votes for Gore and Bush, asking the Lama about who he thought really won. He gave me the great wisdom of “Who cares!”
I suppose the ultimate enlightenment would be to know the why, how, and what of existence, and here is a link towards that, the same link I have given elsewhere recently:
Philosophy...it is. The westerners made that to a religion and it is stuck until the Eastern hemisphere controls the world like they did from 1 AD to 1700 AD (and before that)
I still do not like Buddhism and since it is a parcel of Hinduism long before....I can accept part of that as my philosophy is "Sanatana Dharma"....
Separate names with a comma.