Buddhism as a religion
-
First of all, many thanks to those who gave very detailed replies to my questions on karma in the other thread. I've still wrapping my head around all of the jargon, but I do want to make a couple of observations about Buddhism based on a high level view.
Based on my very limited knowledge of religion as an academic topic, the "theology" of most religions comprise two components:
- A statement of what is objectively Right and, conversely, what is Wrong. Some examples would be the ten commandments of the Bible, or the dictum to reduce suffering in Buddhism.
- A system of rewards and punishments. In many religions, this is the concept of heaven and hell, while karma in Buddhism possibly falls into this category.
Neither of these works on its own. If you know what is Wrong, but there are no repercussions to committing a Wrong, then you might continue to do wrong. Alternatively, if you have no idea what is Right/Wrong, then there would be no way you can avoid punishment or move towards reward.
Now, there are philosophical problems with each of these, and I might go into them later. But for now, I would like to understand, does (2) exist in Buddhism? Does the system of karma function as a reward/punishment mechanism, or is Buddhism mainly about (1)?
- A statement of what is objectively Right and, conversely, what is Wrong. Some examples would be the ten commandments of the Bible, or the dictum to reduce suffering in Buddhism.
-
You study physics before? Do you know what is Van Der Waal principle / forces.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/waal.html
If it is labelled under science, will you label such principle as moralistic or reward/punishment?
What if the principle of karma is a principle similar to Van Der Waal forces. Similar polarisation somehow clums together. What if the various realm like hell, heaven are like similar inclination Beings clumming together. If similar attracts similar, does it still constitute a punishment / reward system? Just an analogy, though.
-
Unlike other religions which believe there's a God, they believe their God judges who are supposed to go to heaven and who are supposed to be condemned to hell. In Buddhism, karma is a "no man operation", karma is law of nature, no one has control or can overrule it, not even God or Buddha. Buddha is the enlightened one who understands how karma works.
To know what is right and what is wrong, read the ä¸‰ä¸–å› æžœç»�.
-
there might be some controversy with ä¸‰ä¸–å› æžœç»�, try çŽ°ä»£å› æžœå®žå½• instead.:)
http://a.bonze.cn/wlsjwz/312.htm
ps: yea, about the judging, it's sad to know a child born in some remote places without hearing of G, have no chance of believing in him and cannot reborn in heaven. then why create them to be reborn in hell?
/\
-
f
or your buddhaness sake, this is common sense thingy...yr no 2 is heaven & hell, there is ghosts that many seen it, theologically, there are animals, there are human, infact, in sphere of human there are alien which is also classified under human in view of their high technological function of their brainy more higher than earth beings. there are also very tiny animals that naked eyes can't see. And you cannot says it is non existing, like buddha mentioned that there are many tiny beings in a glass of water, scientist relying on microscopic equipment called it germs...wow! amazing isn't it...for all buddhaness sake, why show people the problematically suffering side of it (1), should show more blissfully easily attainable finale of it...the past and present like...academic, theologian and intellectual only like proven track records, other wise, you can't rescue them appropriately in this short lifespan
next rebirth also can...
往生实录
http://www.amtb-muar.org/WangShengSL.htm佛城寺é�国兴往生纪实
æ�Žåº†å’Œå±…士“å��ç�€å¿µä½›”安详往生实录
东天目山王�山往生纪实
6��佳�往生西方
æ–°åŠ å�¡é™ˆæ˜Žä¹‰å¾€ç”Ÿçºªå®ž
释法觉比丘尼往生记
�猫往生西方净土
�狗胖胖往生的感悟
�林长预知时至
惊天地 动鬼神
与癌症æ��斗的真æ£å‹‡è€…
一��修的�亲往生�闻录----祥瑞惊人
124�僧人，预知时至，往生西方
一��红军念佛往生事迹
-
First of all, it strikes me that Buddhism has many diverse interpretations. I read a little of the çŽ°ä»£å› æžœå®žå½• in the link posted by sinweiy, and I was surprised at the discussion of ghosts, which Amitayus48 also mentions. I wonder if all the knowledgeable posters here agree with the supernatural aspects of Buddhism.
simpo_ and Dawnfirstlight: The discussion about karma as a law of nature is common, and in effect, I think you are agreeing with me. In Christianity, the system of reward/punishment is administered by a supreme being, like a judge would. In Buddhism, the system of reward/punishment is a law of nature, and no one is able to transcend it.
In both of these cases, it appears that (2) of my original thesis holds: Karma is the mechanism of reward/punishment in Buddhism.
What exactly is karmic retribution though? It is again extremely diverse from the little I've read of it. Some say it is visited upon children, or that natural disaster can happen to a society of many evil-doers as karmic retribution. Is that the conventional idea?
For now, I will accept the assumption that the karmic process is able to precisely identify the impact of free will (assuming there is such a thing). But I still have two main philosophical problems with the concept of karma:
1. It is non-falsifiable.
- When bad things happen to evil people, we say that it is karma at work.
- When bad things happen to good people, we say that they are paying for transgressions in their past lives.
- If good things happen to evil people, we say the timing is not yet right.
In other words, there is no way of proving or disproving karma, because there is an explanation for every scenario. Something that is non-falsifiable may still be correct, but the simpler explanation then is that it does not exist.
2. It is non-specific.
- Why do I care that karmic retribution will be visited upon my next life, given that I have no awareness of it at all? In other words, all suffering is endured in the next life, and not by my present consciousness.
- Is it fair that a child may have to bear the karmic retribution of a parent's wrongdoings? If my father decided to be a mass murderer, how am I morally responsible for it?
- If a natural disaster hits Singapore as karmic retribution to the evil-doings of some or most of its inhabitants, is it fair that the remaining good people also have to suffer?
The non-specificity of the idea of karma adds to its general vagueness and non-falsifiability. More than that, I think that non-specificty is inefficient and potentially unfair.
- When bad things happen to evil people, we say that it is karma at work.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
First of all, it strikes me that Buddhism has many diverse interpretations. I read a little of the çŽ°ä»£å› æžœå®žå½• in the link posted by sinweiy, and I was surprised at the discussion of ghosts, which Amitayus48 also mentions. I wonder if all the knowledgeable posters here agree with the supernatural aspects of Buddhism.
simpo_ and Dawnfirstlight: The discussion about karma as a law of nature is common, and in effect, I think you are agreeing with me. In Christianity, the system of reward/punishment is administered by a supreme being, like a judge would. In Buddhism, the system of reward/punishment is a law of nature, and no one is able to transcend it.
In both of these cases, it appears that (2) of my original thesis holds: Karma is the mechanism of reward/punishment in Buddhism.
What exactly is karmic retribution though? It is again extremely diverse from the little I've read of it. Some say it is visited upon children, or that natural disaster can happen to a society of many evil-doers as karmic retribution. Is that the conventional idea?
For now, I will accept the assumption that the karmic process is able to precisely identify the impact of free will (assuming there is such a thing). But I still have two main philosophical problems with the concept of karma:
1. It is non-falsifiable.
- When bad things happen to evil people, we say that it is karma at work.
- When bad things happen to good people, we say that they are paying for transgressions in their past lives.
- If good things happen to evil people, we say the timing is not yet right.
In other words, there is no way of proving or disproving karma, because there is an explanation for every scenario. Something that is non-falsifiable may still be correct, but the simpler explanation then is that it does not exist.
2. It is non-specific.
- Why do I care that karmic retribution will be visited upon my next life, given that I have no awareness of it at all? In other words, all suffering is endured in the next life, and not by my present consciousness.
- Is it fair that a child may have to bear the karmic retribution of a parent's wrongdoings? If my father decided to be a mass murderer, how am I morally responsible for it?
- If a natural disaster hits Singapore as karmic retribution to the evil-doings of some or most of its inhabitants, is it fair that the remaining good people also have to suffer?
The non-specificity of the idea of karma adds to its general vagueness and non-falsifiability. More than that, I think that non-specificty is inefficient and potentially unfair.
“In other words, there is no way of proving or disproving karma, because there is an explanation for every scenario. Something that is non-falsifiable may still be correct, but the simpler explanation then is that it does not exist”.
If you have arrived at the conclusion that karma does not exist, then I can safely said your conclusion is a fallacy. When a thing does not exist it can only live in our imagination. It is a construction of our intellect. We can place imagination into 2 categories, one which is based on actual perception and where the judgment of it, is arrived at through negation. The other is called a problematic judgment as the knowledge of it does not lead to any purposive action. It is something beyond sensory experience.
If you think karma does not exists, try punching the guy next to you, I believe the working of Karma can be immediately felt. The problem of believing in the existence of karma is the difficulty in the proof of the link between the cause and its effect. Time here is the biggest factor and so is its effect, which may not be so concrete and tangible for one to experience with our senses. Some actions take longer than others for its effects to be felt. That can certainly be proven in our daily lives experience itself.
- When bad things happen to evil people, we say that it is karma at work.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
First of all, it strikes me that Buddhism has many diverse interpretations. I read a little of the çŽ°ä»£å› æžœå®žå½• in the link posted by sinweiy, and I was surprised at the discussion of ghosts, which Amitayus48 also mentions. I wonder if all the knowledgeable posters here agree with the supernatural aspects of Buddhism.
simpo_ and Dawnfirstlight: The discussion about karma as a law of nature is common, and in effect, I think you are agreeing with me. In Christianity, the system of reward/punishment is administered by a supreme being, like a judge would. In Buddhism, the system of reward/punishment is a law of nature, and no one is able to transcend it.
In both of these cases, it appears that (2) of my original thesis holds: Karma is the mechanism of reward/punishment in Buddhism.
What exactly is karmic retribution though? It is again extremely diverse from the little I've read of it. Some say it is visited upon children, or that natural disaster can happen to a society of many evil-doers as karmic retribution. Is that the conventional idea?
For now, I will accept the assumption that the karmic process is able to precisely identify the impact of free will (assuming there is such a thing). But I still have two main philosophical problems with the concept of karma:
1. It is non-falsifiable.
- When bad things happen to evil people, we say that it is karma at work.
- When bad things happen to good people, we say that they are paying for transgressions in their past lives.
- If good things happen to evil people, we say the timing is not yet right.
In other words, there is no way of proving or disproving karma, because there is an explanation for every scenario. Something that is non-falsifiable may still be correct, but the simpler explanation then is that it does not exist.
2. It is non-specific.
- Why do I care that karmic retribution will be visited upon my next life, given that I have no awareness of it at all? In other words, all suffering is endured in the next life, and not by my present consciousness.
- Is it fair that a child may have to bear the karmic retribution of a parent's wrongdoings? If my father decided to be a mass murderer, how am I morally responsible for it?
- If a natural disaster hits Singapore as karmic retribution to the evil-doings of some or most of its inhabitants, is it fair that the remaining good people also have to suffer?
The non-specificity of the idea of karma adds to its general vagueness and non-falsifiability. More than that, I think that non-specificty is inefficient and potentially unfair.
Karma is not as simple as 1+1=2. I think only Buddha or enlightened ones are able to discern it. There are individual karma and collective karma. Why a child is being born in this family and not other family? This is due to their collective karma. Meaning the child has the same karma as the family. Good karma family will attract child with good karma and bad karma family will attract child with bad karma. Thus, what the parents have done have nothing to do with the child.
Natural disasters are also due to collective karma. Example of collective karma is a group of people burning the forest. This group of people are committing the same sin. Burning of forest kills many animals and other living things which is considered a bad deed in Buddhism.
Many people have mistaken that karma only happen in next life which is not true. There are some deeds which karma will ripen in this life. For instance, ill treating parents, slandering or killing sangha etc.
Don't you think the explanation of karma is more logical and sensible than saying it is Higher Being's will or due to individual's luck?
- When bad things happen to evil people, we say that it is karma at work.
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
“In other words, there is no way of proving or disproving karma, because there is an explanation for every scenario. Something that is non-falsifiable may still be correct, but the simpler explanation then is that it does not exist”.
If you have arrived at the conclusion that karma does not exist, then I can safely said your conclusion is a fallacy. When a thing does not exist it can only live in our imagination. It is a construction of our intellect. We can place imagination into 2 categories, one which is based on actual perception and where the judgment of it, is arrived at through negation. The other is called a problematic judgment as the knowledge of it does not lead to any purposive action. It is something beyond sensory experience.
If you think karma does not exists, try punching the guy next to you, I believe the working of Karma can be immediately felt. The problem of believing in the existence of karma is the difficulty in the proof of the link between the cause and its effect. Time here is the biggest factor and so is its effect, which may not be so concrete and tangible for one to experience with our senses. Some actions take longer than others for its effects to be felt. That can certainly be proven in our daily lives experience itself.
I don't need karma to explain why I get punched, if I decide to hit someone with no reason. I can explain it with human nature.
The �是�报，时辰未到 principle is precisely what makes it non-falsifiable. If I get hit back, it's because of karma. If I don't get hit, it's because karma will strike later. Either way, there's no way of knowing whether karma is really present.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
First of all, it strikes me that Buddhism has many diverse interpretations. I read a little of the çŽ°ä»£å› æžœå®žå½• in the link posted by sinweiy, and I was surprised at the discussion of ghosts, which Amitayus48 also mentions. I wonder if all the knowledgeable posters here agree with the supernatural aspects of Buddhism.
simpo_ and Dawnfirstlight: The discussion about karma as a law of nature is common, and in effect, I think you are agreeing with me. In Christianity, the system of reward/punishment is administered by a supreme being, like a judge would. In Buddhism, the system of reward/punishment is a law of nature, and no one is able to transcend it.
In both of these cases, it appears that (2) of my original thesis holds: Karma is the mechanism of reward/punishment in Buddhism.
What exactly is karmic retribution though? It is again extremely diverse from the little I've read of it. Some say it is visited upon children, or that natural disaster can happen to a society of many evil-doers as karmic retribution. Is that the conventional idea?
For now, I will accept the assumption that the karmic process is able to precisely identify the impact of free will (assuming there is such a thing). But I still have two main philosophical problems with the concept of karma:
1. It is non-falsifiable.
- When bad things happen to evil people, we say that it is karma
at work.
- When bad things happen to good people, we say that they are
paying for transgressions in their past lives.
- If good things happen to evil people, we say the timing is not
yet right.
In other words, there is no way of proving or disproving karma, because there is an explanation for every scenario. Something that is non-falsifiable may still be correct, but the simpler explanation then is that it does not exist.
2. It is non-specific.
- Why do I care that karmic retribution will be visited upon my next life, given that I have no awareness of it at all? In other words, all suffering is endured in the next life, and not by my present consciousness.
- Is it fair that a child may have to bear the karmic retribution
of a parent's wrongdoings? If my father decided to be a mass
murderer, how am I morally responsible for it?
- If a natural disaster hits Singapore as karmic retribution to the evil-doings of some or most of its inhabitants, is it fair that the remaining good people also have to suffer?
The non-specificity of the idea of karma adds to its general vagueness and non-falsifiability. More than that, I think that non-specificty is inefficient and potentially unfair.
yes, in theory, you will never be able to prove karma as a science. This is because of the limitations of your sensory perceptions, time and space. As Buddhists, we go ahead and practice, then through practice, we will come to see the workings of karma more and more.
child can bear karmic consequences of parents because when child is born into that family, he is also drawn by his karmic forces to lock into the outcome that will ripen his karma. This is still fair.
mass group karma is also fair. there are many people who also escape from the mass disaster and these people do not have that karma to suffer in this disaster, that's why they escaped. Doesn't mean that the number of people who suffer is many therefore, it is not due to karma. Karma still working.
next life you and present life you is same stream of consciousness. There will still be suffering. You are suffering now from your past life karma, are you aware and care about it?
- When bad things happen to evil people, we say that it is karma
at work.
-
Yes I agree on the supernatural aspects. Yes, I myself have seen ghost
-
In other words, there is no way of proving or disproving karma, because there is an explanation for every scenario. Something that is non-falsifiable may still be correct, but the simpler explanation then is that it does not exist.
Well that's the thing. You cannot prove through objective science. Even rebirth is hard to prove, how do you prove karma? The only prove you can have is through yogic attainment, where you can recall past lives and trace your own karma, like Simpo spoke from his experience.
Karma is one of the things that can only be accepted by faith, until you have direct yogic experience.
- Why do I care that karmic retribution will be visited upon my next life, given that I have no awareness of it at all? In other words, all suffering is endured in the next life, and not by my present consciousness.
- Is it fair that a child may have to bear the karmic retribution
of a parent's wrongdoings? If my father decided to be a mass
murderer, how am I morally responsible for it?
- If a natural disaster hits Singapore as karmic retribution to the evil-doings of some or most of its inhabitants, is it fair that the remaining good people also have to suffer?
If you knew tomorrow you will get amnesia and forget your life, does that mean you need to go stealing and robbing to create further suffering tomorrow?
It is just not sensible.
A child does not bear a parent's wrongdoing - each person is inheritant of his own karma (conventionally speaking).
If a natural disaster hits Singapore, it is a sign of communal/collective karma. For example this whole group of people used to do similar bad deeds in a past life. Maybe we were once in a fishing village/town/country and our main livelihood used to be involved in killing animals. Just an analogy.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Karma is not as simple as 1+1=2. I think only Buddha or enlightened ones are able to discern it. There are individual karma and collective karma. Why a child is being born in this family and not other family? This is due to their collective karma. Meaning the child has the same karma as the family. Good karma family will attract child with good karma and bad karma family will attract child with bad karma. Thus, what the parents have done have nothing to do with the child.
Natural disasters are also due to collective karma. Example of collective karma is a group of people burning the forest. This group of people are committing the same sin. Burning of forest kills many animals and other living things which is considered a bad deed in Buddhism.
Many people have mistaken that karma only happen in next life which is not true. There are some deeds which karma will ripen in this life. For instance, ill treating parents, slandering or killing sangha etc.
Don't you think the explanation of karma is more logical and sensible than saying it is Higher Being's will or due to individual's luck?
The fact that a "good" child is born to a good family really shouldn't be a mystery. Your family influences who you are, both in terms of genetics and cultural/educational upbringing. Again, there really is no need to postulate for karma.
I find it hard to accept that natural disasters are due to collective karma. Japan has been the site of numerous earthquakes for thousands of years, even before World War II. I also find it unfair that, say, a child has to die today in an earthquake because of a war that his grandparent fought.
Karma may be more interesting than the idea of a God, but I don't see evidence for either. Why is a country hit by earthquakes? You could say it's because of karma, but the scientific -- and, I would argue, better -- answer is that there is a build-up of energy beneath the earth's crust, culminating in a catastrophic release. Why does a person win the roulette? You could say it's karma, but it's really because of the speed of rotation of the roulette wheel, the direction of the throw, etc.
-
a child has to die today in an earthquake because of a war that his grandparent fought.
No, this will never happen. Each person inherits his own karma.
is that there is a build-up of energy beneath the earth's crust, culminating in a catastrophic release
Of course it is true. But the reason you are born in that area is due to karma.
-
My master used to take a real life analogy from the newspaper, someone who escaped unharmed in the airplane when everyone else had died - maybe he was late for flight, or somehow some reason he survived. This is 'the exceptional-karma within collective karma'. That karma to get killed is not his, that is how he escapes.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
I don't need karma to explain why I get punched, if I decide to hit someone with no reason. I can explain it with human nature.
The �是�报，时辰未到 principle is precisely what makes it non-falsifiable. If I get hit back, it's because of karma. If I don't get hit, it's because karma will strike later. Either way, there's no way of knowing whether karma is really present.
"the simpler explanation then is that it does not exist”.So does karma exist or does not exist?
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
"the simpler explanation then is that it does not exist”.So does karma exist or does not exist?
It seems that most agree that karma cannot be scientifically proven. From my point of view, then, chances are that karma does not exist.
From Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in My Garage":
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
(Emphasis mine)
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
The fact that a "good" child is born to a good family really shouldn't be a mystery. Your family influences who you are, both in terms of genetics and cultural/educational upbringing. Again, there really is no need to postulate for karma.
I find it hard to accept that natural disasters are due to collective karma. Japan has been the site of numerous earthquakes for thousands of years, even before World War II. I also find it unfair that, say, a child has to die today in an earthquake because of a war that his grandparent fought.
Karma may be more interesting than the idea of a God, but I don't see evidence for either. Why is a country hit by earthquakes? You could say it's because of karma, but the scientific -- and, I would argue, better -- answer is that there is a build-up of energy beneath the earth's crust, culminating in a catastrophic release. Why does a person win the roulette? You could say it's karma, but it's really because of the speed of rotation of the roulette wheel, the direction of the throw, etc.
we can go on to ask why is there a buildup of energy at that place. and why and why and why further... at some point , i believe that science will fail to be able to answer.
karma is also science, but science does not cover all of karma. science also postulates cause-and-effect relationships.
-
basically your present viewpoint is also your karma. effect of how you have educated and trusted in science and logical systems. That is how your viewpoints/concepts are built up. Dharma is to eventually demolish all concepts. The workings of Karma help us to do that. It is like a bridge to freedom from concepts
-
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:
we can go on to ask why is there a buildup of energy at that place. and why and why and why further... at some point , i believe that science will fail to be able to answer.
karma is also science, but science does not cover all of karma. science also postulates cause-and-effect relationships.
As we dive into ever-deepening questions of "why", there could indeed be a time when our science can no longer hold the answers. But that still doesn't mean that karma would be the answer. I actually prefer An Eternal Now's point about being "born" in a disaster area due to karma, although that's still not falsifiable.
Science is falsifiable. Countless past scientific theories have been debunked. Even today, the possible presence of a faster-than-light neutrino gives us some difficulties.
Science is predictive. Using physical laws, I can predict predict when the next solar eclipses are for the next 1000 years.
Karma is neither falsifiable nor is it able to make verifiable predictions. It cannot be said to be a science.
-
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm
...It was this important text, which states the belief that all physical circumstances and mental attitudes spring solely from past Karma that Buddha contradicted. If the present life is totally conditioned or wholly controlled by our past actions, then certainly Karma is tantamount to fatalism or determinism or predestination. If this were true, free will would be an absurdity. Life would be purely mechanistic, not much different from a machine. Being created by an Almighty God who controls our destinies and predetermines our future, or being produced by an irresistible Karma that completely determines our fate and controls our life’s course, independent of any free action on our part, is essentially the same. The only difference lies in the two words God and Karma. One could easily be substituted for the other, because the ultimate operation of both forces would be identical.
Such a fatalistic doctrine is not the Buddhist law of Karma.
According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (niyama) which operate in the physical and mental realms.
They are:
- Utu Niyama - physical inorganic order, e.g. seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. The unerring order of seasons, characteristic seasonal changes and events, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat, etc., all belong to this group.
- Bija Niyama - order of germs and seeds (physical organic order), e.g. rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar-cane or honey, peculiar characteristics of certain fruits, etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.
- Karma Niyama - order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results. As surely as water seeks its own level so does Karma, given opportunity, produce its inevitable result, not in the form of a reward or punishment but as an innate sequence. This sequence of deed and effect is as natural and necessary as the way of the sun and the moon.
- Dhamma Niyama - order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Bodhisattva in his last birth. Gravitation and other similar laws of nature. The natural reason for being good and so forth, may be included in this group.
- Citta Niyama - order or mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness, arising and perishing of consciousness, constituents of consciousness, power of mind, etc., including telepathy, telaesthesia, retro-cognition, premonition, clairvoyance, clairaudience, thought-reading and such other psychic phenomena which are inexplicable to modern science.
Every mental or physical phenomenon could be explained by these all-embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. Karma as such is only one of these five orders. Like all other natural laws they demand no lawgiver...
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
It seems that most agree that karma cannot be scientifically proven. From my point of view, then, chances are that karma does not exist.
From Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in My Garage":
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
(Emphasis mine)
Carl Sagan’s “The Dragon in My Garage” is similar to the Buddhist simile of the ‘Flower in the Sky’. It is a constructed imagination of our intellect that cannot product any form of purposive action. It is not a valid knowledge. But as a Buddhist, to me, there are also imagination that are based on reality through indirect sensuous perception that are considered right knowledge as it can lead one to taking purposive actions. One of these beliefs is in the existence of kamma.
-
define religion first.
praying or worshipping to go or the systemic way of god worship.
if this is the definition, buddhism is not a religion. there are no praying or worshipping or even a creator god concept.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
define religion first.
praying or worshipping to go or the systemic way of god worship.
if this is the definition, buddhism is not a religion. there are no praying or worshipping or even a creator god concept.
My first post lays it out quite clearly, I think. Whether Buddhism is technically a religion is not the issue really.
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
Carl Sagan’s “The Dragon in My Garage” is similar to the Buddhist simile of the ‘Flower in the Sky’. It is a constructed imagination of our intellect that cannot product any form of purposive action. It is not a valid knowledge. But as a Buddhist, to me, there are also imagination that are based on reality through indirect sensuous perception that are considered right knowledge as it can lead one to taking purposive actions. One of these beliefs is in the existence of kamma.
"Indirect sensuous perception"? What do you mean?