Last edited:
kajolishot
Registered Senior Member
To see the ultimate peacefulness of Buddhism is to know the history of India.
As you all know Buddhism started in India and Siddarta was a Hindu/Jain devotee.
During the Mughal dynasty invasions, Buddhism was fully eliminated from India under the sword. Ofcourse this much is evident today with a very low number of Buddhist followers in India.
Buddhism is, it can be argued, also too 'good' for humans. It demands the protection of all forms of life. But humans are more influenced by emotion than are by some old faded out words.
Also, Karma and reincarnation (or rebirth) are discussed in the fundamental Buddhist beliefs. Also, to preach Karma is to preach rebirth. That bond is inseprable.
But Buddhism added a way out of the cycle of bith/death whereas Hinduism does not. I would agree with Hinduism in that regard. For example, if you consider the life of a Star...
...a star is made of remnents of another star and once this star goes supernova that material will form another star....this process repeats until infinity.
Also, all matter in the Cosmos is made of old stars. So it seems fitting to know what we are today will one day go towards making another star or planet.
Buddhism does not discuss existence of a "soul" or a "supernatural being". Not as far as I am aware of through my readings and learning from the monks at the Monestary.
As you all know Buddhism started in India and Siddarta was a Hindu/Jain devotee.
During the Mughal dynasty invasions, Buddhism was fully eliminated from India under the sword. Ofcourse this much is evident today with a very low number of Buddhist followers in India.
Buddhism is, it can be argued, also too 'good' for humans. It demands the protection of all forms of life. But humans are more influenced by emotion than are by some old faded out words.
Also, Karma and reincarnation (or rebirth) are discussed in the fundamental Buddhist beliefs. Also, to preach Karma is to preach rebirth. That bond is inseprable.
But Buddhism added a way out of the cycle of bith/death whereas Hinduism does not. I would agree with Hinduism in that regard. For example, if you consider the life of a Star...
...a star is made of remnents of another star and once this star goes supernova that material will form another star....this process repeats until infinity.
Also, all matter in the Cosmos is made of old stars. So it seems fitting to know what we are today will one day go towards making another star or planet.
Buddhism does not discuss existence of a "soul" or a "supernatural being". Not as far as I am aware of through my readings and learning from the monks at the Monestary.
B
buddhafish
Guest
What a wonderful thread.
Just a few things I wanna touch on. Does it really matter if a person wants to adopt pieces of Christianity and pieces of Buddhism? The answer is no. You can mediate, you can believe in God, you can do both or do neither.. heck, throw in some of your own philosphy, and add a dash of Judaism. It's up to you. Just be a good person and try to help relieve the suffering of others any way you can.. this will lead to the only truly verifiable bliss -- inner peace.
Mike
Just a few things I wanna touch on. Does it really matter if a person wants to adopt pieces of Christianity and pieces of Buddhism? The answer is no. You can mediate, you can believe in God, you can do both or do neither.. heck, throw in some of your own philosphy, and add a dash of Judaism. It's up to you. Just be a good person and try to help relieve the suffering of others any way you can.. this will lead to the only truly verifiable bliss -- inner peace.
Mike
B
buddhafish
Guest
Good point. It takes an awful amount of courage and desire for inner change for someone who is raised in a certain culture to venture out and to begin to experience what these faded words try to tell you.. fact is words simply cannot convey these feelings and these experiences -- you need to have them for yourself. If you, for just one day, feel what it is like to live starving, you will never again be able to see the images of starving African children on TV without feeling something.. I don't know if that really demonstrates my point until whoever reads this truly understands what I mean.
Yes, and no. Let's not forget that it was not Siddhartha who wrote the Dhammapada and such -- these were sermons that were, as the story goes, commited to memory by Siddhartha's companion, and recorded to text only after Siddhartha's death -- and also remember that this happened approximately 2,500 years ago. A lot has happened in that time, and as we've seen from the bible, it's very possible that things could have been changed.
I'm not saying that's what happened in this case.. I'm just demonstrating that it could have happened. Fact is it is very very difficult to factually prove rebirth (for the record, i do believe in rebirth btw), however it is quite easy to prove cause and effect. It takes an untold time for each individual to truly realise karma.. but until then, to simply get people on the right path, I see no harm in preaching karma as simply being a description of causality -- even if only for the purposes of attaching a can opener to their mind so that they can discover for themselves the truth of karma.
Let me put it this way.. if someone has been told from birth that God is in heaven, and when you die if you have lived a good life your spirit will reside alongside God for eternity. Now, that's a pretty good way of convincing someone to do good things -- however, in my opinion, not nearly as good as karma. You can get them interested by factually demonstrating cause and effect. You can start them on the path, show them the door, insert metaphor here, and allow them to figure it out on their own. Buddhism is the path of self discovery and of experiences beyond words.
Also just to touch on the star death/rebirth, etc, etc. This is a very interesting point because now it applies the cycle of causality and rebirth to not just humans/animals/life, but to everything. One thing to load into your mind's chewhole, however -- it has recently been discovered that, in fact, there is not enough matter in the universe to cause the so-called 'big crunch'. This was one of my favourite theories (the big crunch) for a long time because it agreed so well with Buddhism, but -- for now, anyway -- it has been proven false. So we are saying now that, as far as the universe is concerned, there is a beginning and no end.. a trite alarming, no?
Mike
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Alarming? Why??? To suppose that no matter what we do, the universe has always been there and it will continue to always be there -- I personally find that very comforting. If time is infinite, then if we screw up and blow up our planet with all the wonders of nature and artifacts of our culture, so that the people in Tau Ceti will never be able to know the love of a dog or see Iguassu Falls or hear Bolero, at least somewhere along the way some other planet will be the site of something more or less equally marvelous, even if it's not the same.
To me that is a Good Thing of trans-Martha Stewart proportions.
kajolishot
Registered Senior Member
Interesting. Could you forward me to some resource that explains it in greater detail?
I have not heard of this...ever.
kajolishot
Registered Senior Member
buddhafish
the so-called 'big crunch'. This was one of my favourite theories (the big crunch) for a long time because it agreed so well with Buddhism
I do not think Buddhism or Hinduism claims that the universe flucuates...but rather both faiths state the universe always has been and always will be. The death/rebirth is appropriate for the galaxies, stars, planets, other astronomical objects. Stars are born, they go super nova, the star-stuff goes to form another star...and that process comes back to humans as we are also made of star-stuff. We all are part of the cosmos.
There are four or five "cycles" in Hinduism that explains, possibly the theory of the Big Bang.
I've contradicted myself a little bit, so i'll come back later and try to correct it. Or someone else can.
the so-called 'big crunch'. This was one of my favourite theories (the big crunch) for a long time because it agreed so well with Buddhism
I do not think Buddhism or Hinduism claims that the universe flucuates...but rather both faiths state the universe always has been and always will be. The death/rebirth is appropriate for the galaxies, stars, planets, other astronomical objects. Stars are born, they go super nova, the star-stuff goes to form another star...and that process comes back to humans as we are also made of star-stuff. We all are part of the cosmos.
There are four or five "cycles" in Hinduism that explains, possibly the theory of the Big Bang.
I've contradicted myself a little bit, so i'll come back later and try to correct it. Or someone else can.
T
the sage
Guest
what exactly is "star stuff" ?
B
buddhafish
Guest
Hydrogen, mostly.
I'm not 100% on this.. I should probably look it up first, but I'm a little short of time at the moment. I read/heard somewhere that all the matter in the universe existed at the instant of the big bang. *everything* existed at that moment, only highly condensed.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000
Read this article from Scientific American about parallel universes.. I have a feeling that the information is in there. Anyway yeah that's what he means, I'm sure.
Mike
B
buddhafish
Guest
Originally posted by kajolishot
I do not think Buddhism or Hinduism claims that the universe flucuates...but rather both faiths state the universe always has been and always will be. The death/rebirth is appropriate for the galaxies, stars, planets, other astronomical objects. Stars are born, they go super nova, the star-stuff goes to form another star...and that process comes back to humans as we are also made of star-stuff. We all are part of the cosmos.
There are four or five "cycles" in Hinduism that explains, possibly the theory of the Big Bang.
I've contradicted myself a little bit, so i'll come back later and try to correct it. Or someone else can.
I read a book once titled 'The Quantum and the Lotus' which was basically a conversation between a astrophysicist and a monk.. what's interesting about the two author's backgrounds is that the astrophysicist was born in I believe Vietnam, and raised Buddhist, then moved to the United States to persue a career in astronomy. On the other hand, the monk was born either American or French (lived in both USA and France during his life anyway), got his doctorate in I think biology, then moved to a monastery (in Tibet, I think -- been a while since I read the book hehe) and became a monk.
Anyway, during the course of their conversation, which was basically them comparing the discoveries of quantum physics, and comparing them to the philosophies of Buddhism. At one point they came to the topic of the universe.. the monk stated that Buddhism states that the universe is in an endless cycle of birth/rebirth, such as with everything... at the time the book was written, it was not known whether or not it was possible for the universe to start contracting. I attented a lecture recently put on by one of the scientists responsible for the high detail mapping of the cosmic microwave background. He said that the findings based on this new map of the c.m.b. ruled out the possibility of an endless cycle of birth/rebirth due to insufficient matter in the universe. I remember the monk in the book trying to be very clear about that point.. making sure that, at that time, as far as science knew, it was possible that the universe could one day collapse in on itself, and that the matter once collapse could again be ignited into a new universe.
Mike
hmmm... I think the present Dalai lama (tetzin?) is a reincarnation of a former Dalai lama, hence the number 14. anyway there are people called boddhisattvas, which are enlightened buddhas but because they have love humanity so much that they choose to postpone their entrance into nirvana and reincarnate so they can be capable of helping the rest of humanity reach enlightenment as well. awesome stuff, i took the boddhisattva vows and hopefully one day i will be worthy enough to spread teachings on compassion and tolerance. and speaking of tolerance, there is nothing wrong with Abrahamic religions. The Jewish have the kabbalah which holds some valuable truths. If one were to replace "god" with the idea of all of us being one entity, Christianity would be all right.
Buddhism and Cosmology
What are the consequences of the concept of interdependence on cosmological ideas in Buddhism? The concept of interdependence implies that the elements of the conventional reality we are all familiar with do not possess an existence that is permanent and autonomous. This thing exists because something else exists, that happens because this has occurred. Nothing can exist by itself and be its own cause.
Everything depends on everything else. Suppose that there is an entity that exists independently of all the others. This implies that it is not produced by a cause, that is, either it has always existed or it does not exist at all. Such an entity will be unchanging since it cannot act on others and others cannot act on it. The world of phenomena could not function. Thus interdependence is essential for phenomena to manifest themselves.
Because the concept of interdependence implies that nothing can exist by itself and be its own cause, it goes against the idea of a creative principle, a First Cause or a God that is permanent, all-powerful, that has no other cause than itself, and which created the universe. In the same vein, Buddhism rejects the idea that the universe can be born out of nothing - a creation ex-nihilo - because the universe has to depend on something else to emerge. If the universe was created, it is because there was a potentiality already present. The coming into being of the universe is merely the realization of that potentiality. One can thus interpret the Big Bang as the manifestation of the phenomenal world emerging from an infinite potentiality already in existence. In a poetic language, Buddhism speaks about of "particles of space" which carry in them the potentiality of matter. This is strongly reminiscent of the vacuum filled with energy that is thought to have given birth the material content of the universe in the modern Big Bang theory. Material phenomenon and things are not "created" in the sense that they go from a state of non-existence to one of existence. Rather they go from an unrealized state to a realized state. Once it has come into existence, the universe goes through a series of cycles, each composed of 4 stages: birth, evolution, death and a state where the universe is pure potentiality but has not manifested yet itself. This cyclic universe has no beginning nor an end.
What are the consequences of the concept of interdependence on cosmological ideas in Buddhism? The concept of interdependence implies that the elements of the conventional reality we are all familiar with do not possess an existence that is permanent and autonomous. This thing exists because something else exists, that happens because this has occurred. Nothing can exist by itself and be its own cause.
Everything depends on everything else. Suppose that there is an entity that exists independently of all the others. This implies that it is not produced by a cause, that is, either it has always existed or it does not exist at all. Such an entity will be unchanging since it cannot act on others and others cannot act on it. The world of phenomena could not function. Thus interdependence is essential for phenomena to manifest themselves.
Because the concept of interdependence implies that nothing can exist by itself and be its own cause, it goes against the idea of a creative principle, a First Cause or a God that is permanent, all-powerful, that has no other cause than itself, and which created the universe. In the same vein, Buddhism rejects the idea that the universe can be born out of nothing - a creation ex-nihilo - because the universe has to depend on something else to emerge. If the universe was created, it is because there was a potentiality already present. The coming into being of the universe is merely the realization of that potentiality. One can thus interpret the Big Bang as the manifestation of the phenomenal world emerging from an infinite potentiality already in existence. In a poetic language, Buddhism speaks about of "particles of space" which carry in them the potentiality of matter. This is strongly reminiscent of the vacuum filled with energy that is thought to have given birth the material content of the universe in the modern Big Bang theory. Material phenomenon and things are not "created" in the sense that they go from a state of non-existence to one of existence. Rather they go from an unrealized state to a realized state. Once it has come into existence, the universe goes through a series of cycles, each composed of 4 stages: birth, evolution, death and a state where the universe is pure potentiality but has not manifested yet itself. This cyclic universe has no beginning nor an end.
"Buddha is the greatest scientist in the history of mankind."
I have often heard this at bana sermons. This is completely wrong. Scientists are people who are constrained to work solely within and accept only, the knowledge generated by the scientific method. They generally reject knowledge generated by the other method. The Buddha did not use the scientific method and therefore he is not a scientist.
Of the two methods of acquiring knowledge available to the human being the Buddha used the right brain centered intuition method, where as the western approach to acquiring knowledge used the left brain method. The Buddha trained his mind to an extreme high state of enlightenment (Buddhahood) from where he could understand the true reality of nature in its totality. It is based on such knowledge that he propounded a philosophy which is most conducive to balanced and happy living which leads to living in harmony with others, living in harmony with nature, meaningful living devoid of stress, anxiety, jealousy and empty pride, ultimately ending up in a meaningful state full of bliss. That was over 2500 years ago. Science began much later." [More...]
Source: Buddhism and Modern Science by Dr. Granville Dharmawardena
I have often heard this at bana sermons. This is completely wrong. Scientists are people who are constrained to work solely within and accept only, the knowledge generated by the scientific method. They generally reject knowledge generated by the other method. The Buddha did not use the scientific method and therefore he is not a scientist.
Of the two methods of acquiring knowledge available to the human being the Buddha used the right brain centered intuition method, where as the western approach to acquiring knowledge used the left brain method. The Buddha trained his mind to an extreme high state of enlightenment (Buddhahood) from where he could understand the true reality of nature in its totality. It is based on such knowledge that he propounded a philosophy which is most conducive to balanced and happy living which leads to living in harmony with others, living in harmony with nature, meaningful living devoid of stress, anxiety, jealousy and empty pride, ultimately ending up in a meaningful state full of bliss. That was over 2500 years ago. Science began much later." [More...]
Source: Buddhism and Modern Science by Dr. Granville Dharmawardena
well one could say he used the scientific method. he tried to achieve enlightenment by different ways. His question was "how can i achieve enlightenment?" His first hypothesis was to follow the way of the yogis then it was to starve himself to death. he experimented with these variables and found out they were futile. His conclusion- follow the Middle path, don't go to extremes even when trying to achieve enlightenment. Consider it "sacred science".
i dunno if this is a retorical question... but just in case, what the Buddha wanted to teach his disciples is that one should never go to extremes. In my former post i talked about how the Buddha experimented with different 'rituals' in order to be awakened. He discovered that by starving himself or meditate the whole day he would never achieve enlightenment. therefore he practised everything in moderation.