Buddhism as a religion
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
"Indirect sensuous perception"? What do you mean?
Inference. -
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.
Hi... well maybe it's hard for you to believe in karma. Try contemplating the 4 immeasurable minds? See what you can do to improve your social environment.
life is hard enough... we should help others to reduce suffering... karma in turn will take care of you
- When bad things happen to evil people, we say that it is karma at work.
-
The problem is that just because we cannot prove or disprove it doesn't mean it does not exist. At this point, I am inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.
-
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.
Yeah, it is true that there's an explanation on why natural disasters strike certain places. However, can you explain why some people are born in places where disasters strike and why some people are not? Just like a person who was born disable, the person may ask "Why Me?" There are many natural disasters which strike the place for the 1st time in our modern time. One good example is Myanmar, which happened a few years ago.
-
Kamma as a law of nature
Buddhism teaches that all things, both material and immaterial, are entirely subject to the direction of causes and are interdependent. This natural course of things is called in common terms "the law of nature," and in the Pali language niyama, literally meaning "certainty" or "fixed way," referring to the fact that specific determinants inevitably lead to corresponding results.
The laws of nature, although uniformly based on the principle of causal dependence, can nevertheless be sorted into different modes of relationship. The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of natural law, or niyama. They are:
1. Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by heat or temperature.
2. Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."
3. Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental reactions to them.
4. Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds bring bad results."
5. Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.
The first four niyama are contained within, or based on, the fifth one, Dhammaniyama, the Law of Dhamma, or the Law of Nature. It may be questioned why Dhammaniyama, being as it were the totality, is also included within the subdivisions. This is because this fourfold categorization does not cover the entire extent of Dhammaniyama.
Understanding
the Law of Kammahttp://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma1.htm#law
Do read first...
/\
-
i also think you are taking Buddhism to be some kind of philosophical subject which it is not. It is meant to be lived and practised in our ordinary daily life.
Although karmic law is incontrovertible in our ordinary sense of reality. But ultimately Buddha teaches that we should go beyond both positive or negative karma, as both are links that still trap us in samsara. In the ultimate truth, karma lacks independent existence too.
-
i quote Khenpo Tsultrim Lodro here :
"The occurence of samsara is due to the two types of causes, the subtle causes and the gross causes. The subtle cause is self-grasping. From self-grasping comes karma, after karma, samsara occurs..."
and
"What are the grosser causes of samsara? These are the ten virtuous deeds, and the ten negative deeds. The ten negative deeds include killing, stealing, sexual misconduct etc., if there are these causes, then one will fall into the lower realms. The ten virtuous deeds are vowing to stop all killing, stealing and sexual misconduct etc. and on top of that, saving lives; not stealing, but doing charity etc. These virtues will allow us to reborn into the human, god or demi-god realms. But even for the ten virtues, if it has no relationship with the wisdom of realising emptiness, is not able to bring liberation, but will cause people to continue in samsara and continue rebirth. Also, the four samadhis and eight concentrations- if without any wisdom realising emptiness, just practising these four samadhis and eight concentrations, is also unable to let one be liberated, it is still the cause of samsara. If one practises these four samadhis and eight concentrations well, what is the fruition? One will be reborn in form and formless realms. Form and formless realms are a part of the heavenly devas/gods realms, still part of samsara, still within the confines of samsara. These are the gross causes of samsara. “
and
“In practising dharma, first cut away the gross causes of samsara, then after realising emptiness, the subtle causes of samsara is also dissolved. Finally, when all the gross and subtle causes are overturned, then samsara ceases…”
and
“The gross causes and conditions can be divided into two types: virtuous deeds and negative deeds. Negative deeds of course are the causes of samsara. But even the virtuous deeds are causes continuing samsara, because it is a leaking/impure/imperfect virtue. The imperfect virtue is referring to someone who does not have realisation performing positive deeds. Although such positive deeds can cause rebirth into positive realms like human or heaven realms, but it is still in samsara, hence it is called imperfect. Therefore, imperfect virtues and negativities are both causes of cycling in samsara. (Note: Before realising emptiness, but with renunciation and bodhichitta, one performs virtuous deeds, although it is imperfect, it is still a method for liberation…)"
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Yeah, it is true that there's an explanation on why natural disasters strike certain places. However, can you explain why some people are born in places where disasters strike and why some people are not? Just like a person who was born disable, the person may ask "Why Me?" There are many natural disasters which strike the place for the 1st time in our modern time. One good example is Myanmar, which happened a few years ago.
This I think is a fundamental issue. Because human beings have self-awareness and empathy, we are able to imagine ourselves in the shoes of other people. We then ask: "Why do good things happen to him, and bad things happen to me?"
However, the fact that we can ask a question does not automatically make it a valid one. There may not be a deeper reason for things -- good and bad -- that happen to us.
As human beings, we seek meaning behind the things that happen to us, whether it be a thunder-wielding Zeus, the fallen angel Lucifer, or just karma. But so far, I've yet to see anyone in this topic demonstrate why karma is a verifiable concept. It seems to boil down to faith.
Think about this for a moment.
- If karma is true, then philosophically we deserve all the good and the bad that happens to us.
- If karma (or any similar religious principle) is false, then we do not deserve the good or the bad that happens to us.
Warren Buffet, an atheist, is pledging away the vast majority of his wealth. Read this excerpt, and you'll have a sense of why non-belief in karma can lead to greater empathy and humanity:
"My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery. (For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the U.S. were at least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge obstacles that a majority of Americans then faced.) My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well. I've worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate's distribution of long straws is wildly capricious."
- If karma is true, then philosophically we deserve all the good and the bad that happens to us.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
Kamma as a law of nature
Buddhism teaches that all things, both material and immaterial, are entirely subject to the direction of causes and are interdependent. This natural course of things is called in common terms "the law of nature," and in the Pali language niyama, literally meaning "certainty" or "fixed way," referring to the fact that specific determinants inevitably lead to corresponding results.
The laws of nature, although uniformly based on the principle of causal dependence, can nevertheless be sorted into different modes of relationship. The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of natural law, or niyama. They are:
1. Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by heat or temperature.
2. Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."
3. Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental reactions to them.
4. Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds bring bad results."
5. Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.
The first four niyama are contained within, or based on, the fifth one, Dhammaniyama, the Law of Dhamma, or the Law of Nature. It may be questioned why Dhammaniyama, being as it were the totality, is also included within the subdivisions. This is because this fourfold categorization does not cover the entire extent of Dhammaniyama.
Understanding
the Law of Kammahttp://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma1.htm#law
Do read first...
/\
I've read some of the articles that you and others have posted. Frankly, though, I don't see the relevance to the argument at hand.
Let me extend the earlier analogy to illustrate. I argue that the concept of karma is similar to the invisible, incorporeal dragon in my garage (see earlier link). It is non-falsifiable, so there is no way of testing whether it is true. Therefore, if you take away faith, the simpler answer is that karma -- just like my garage dragon -- does not exist.
The fact that my dragon is beautiful and strong does not add any substance to my claim that it is real. In the same vein, the fact that karma is an elegant and wonderful concept, with lots of intricate details, does not make it any more valid.
-
Originally posted by allkosong:
The problem is that just because we cannot prove or disprove it doesn't mean it does not exist. At this point, I am inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Yes. We may not be able to prove or disprove karma. But the burden of proof is different depending on the claim. The individual who is claiming the existence of, say, an invisible, incorporeal pink unicorn has to prove it, because I could never disprove it.
If the proof of existence does not come, then at some point, you have to ask whether it is wishful thinking to continue believing in it.
-
That is why we cannot do without faith at least in the beginning. Faith is important in Buddhism so that at least we have some conviction in the teacher and the method and follow his teaching to experience what the teacher himself has seen.
But there is a difference between bad faith (faith in things that can never be verified such as unicorns) and good faith (faith in things that can be verified in direct experience). Many may not realize that they actually put a lot of faith in science - though it can be argued that science is good faith since they are verifiable.
Buddhism, all the truths taught by Buddha has been from his own experience in his three knowledges he gained in awakening - the truth of rebirth, karma, and four noble truths that ends suffering. Those are not theories or concepts he came up with, but what he has seen to be true. He simply offered others his own experience.
By following the methods of Buddhism, we too can verify them for ourselves, as many have done so. Buddhism is also a form of science - though different from the conventional modern day materialistic science. Buddhism is a science that deals mainly with mind, consciousness, and suffering.
Buddha does not demand blind faith or worship, but some amount of faith in him as a teacher, and his teaching can go a long way for our own practice and path.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
I've read some of the articles that you and others have posted. Frankly, though, I don't see the relevance to the argument at hand.
Let me extend the earlier analogy to illustrate. I argue that the concept of karma is similar to the invisible, incorporeal dragon in my garage (see earlier link). It is non-falsifiable, so there is no way of testing whether it is true. Therefore, if you take away faith, the simpler answer is that karma -- just like my garage dragon -- does not exist.
The fact that my dragon is beautiful and strong does not add any substance to my claim that it is real. In the same vein, the fact that karma is an elegant and wonderful concept, with lots of intricate details, does not make it any more valid.
it would if i see the working of karma happen to my own family and ownself. just like one who personally saw the "garage dragon"( for example) would believe that it exist to him. no matter how people say it's not true will not change his "believe" in the 'truth' he experienced. it's true to him per se. as it has gone from mere believe to real believe/faith.
/\
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Yes. We may not be able to prove or disprove karma. But the burden of proof is different depending on the claim. The individual who is claiming the existence of, say, an invisible, incorporeal pink unicorn has to prove it, because I could never disprove it.
If the proof of existence does not come, then at some point, you have to ask whether it is wishful thinking to continue believing in it.
There is no burden of proving.
As Khenpo Tsultrim Lodro said,
佛教ä¸�赞æˆ�以强硬的手段推广自己的教法。佛陀说过:ä¸�能给对佛法没有兴趣人讲ç»�说法，ä¸�能给对大乘佛法ä¸�感兴趣的å°�乘修行人讲大乘佛法。佛陀认为，尊é‡�众生的信仰或观点很é‡�è¦�，å�¦åˆ™ä¼šè®©å¯¹æ–¹é€ ä¸šå •æ�¶è¶£ã€‚
Buddhism does not promote its own viewpoints to those who are not receptive. The reason is that we respect your views and you are entittled to hold them.
For studying spirituality, you must have openness and a willingness to make mistakes. So what if you are a fool for believing, you will learn through the process.
-
how christianity interpretes their punishment/reward from judge is their own karma. is not so much courtesy to debate/discuss on their behalf
so far no medical, science and dna can explain the rational behind person who born with deformity. it has been clearly explained in buddhism scripture.
religion and teaching/education are different, the former is having a God as their command. the latter is evokes from within and the nature true in others as well. for instance, buddhists observing vegetarianism is not mainly because of health sake, but because these animals are rebirthed as animals due to karmic, they may be a parents of other loved ones or past parents, siblings, loved ones, and factually they have buddha nature that ought to be treated compassionately and equally.
conversely, some hindu observes vegetarianism on specific day because of respect to the god of that day, and each hindu has a different god to respect, so their observation of vegetarianism for each day is varied according to their God's day.
-
Originally posted by Amitayus48:
how christianity interpretes their punishment/reward from judge is their own karma. is not so much courtesy to debate/discuss on their behalf
so far no medical, science and dna can explain the rational behind person who born with deformity. it has been clearly explained in buddhism scripture.
religion and teaching/education are different, the former is having a God as their command. the latter is evokes from within and the nature true in others as well. for instance, buddhists observing vegetarianism is not mainly because of health sake, but because these animals are rebirthed as animals due to karmic, they may be a parents of other loved ones or past parents, siblings, loved ones, and factually they have buddha nature that ought to be treated compassionately and equally.
conversely, some hindu observes vegetarianism on specific day because of respect to the god of that day, and each hindu has a different god to respect, so their observation of vegetarianism for each day is varied according to their God's day.
1. Medical science is able to explain how deformities are formed. This is the reason, for example, pregnant mothers shouldn't smoke.
2. Going back to my original Point (2), if I am born with a serious physical deformity, the concept of karma will strike me as grossly unfair. Why should I be made to suffer for the works of my previous lives -- over which I have no control at all?
3. If Buddhists don't eat animals because of these reasons, is eating oysters allowed? From what I've read, people can only be reincarnated into sentient creatures, and lots of shellfish are believed to be non-sentient.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
1. Medical science is able to explain how deformities are formed. This is the reason, for example, pregnant mothers shouldn't smoke.
2. Going back to my original Point (2), if I am born with a serious physical deformity, the concept of karma will strike me as grossly unfair. Why should I be made to suffer for the works of my previous lives -- over which I have no control at all?
3. If Buddhists don't eat animals because of these reasons, is eating oysters allowed? From what I've read, people can only be reincarnated into sentient creatures, and lots of shellfish are believed to be non-sentient.
wait there is a split in this issue. theravada and mahayana do you know they are different schools split up after the demise of Buddha.
Mahayana advocated vegan but its not a commandment that you must be a vegan. it is totally voluntary. as for theradava, Buddha never implemented vegetarianism. he even rejected it when a renegade disciple, his cousin, asked the Buddha to implement vegan, but he did not accepted it.
sinweiy:blue text from the POV of theravada, not mahayana. vegan is stricter than vegetarism is not advocated by Mahayana. Buddha in the end did sort of advocate it skillfully.
-
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:
There is no burden of proving.
As Khenpo Tsultrim Lodro said,
佛教ä¸�赞æˆ�以强硬的手段推广自己的教法。佛陀说过:ä¸�能给对佛法没有兴趣人讲ç»�说法，ä¸�能给对大乘佛法ä¸�感兴趣的å°�乘修行人讲大乘佛法。佛陀认为，尊é‡�众生的信仰或观点很é‡�è¦�，å�¦åˆ™ä¼šè®©å¯¹æ–¹é€ ä¸šå •æ�¶è¶£ã€‚
Buddhism does not promote its own viewpoints to those who are not receptive. The reason is that we respect your views and you are entittled to hold them.
For studying spirituality, you must have openness and a willingness to make mistakes. So what if you are a fool for believing, you will learn through the process.
I spend a lot of time debating Christians, and so far the responses in this Buddhist forum have been relatively weak. Don't get me wrong -- I think some of the core ideas of Buddhism are substantially more defensible than Christianity's, but I just don't think the Buddhist community is well-equipped to defend the religon.
Authoritative doctrine seems to be a common position here, i.e. "ABC is correct because so-and-so said so". But despite the statement by Khenpo Tsultrim Lodro, I would ask you to consider the following:
1. If you regard Buddhism as the truth, then shouldn't you attempt to share that with others -- even those who have no initial interest in it? Should an educator stop teaching math to an uninterested student?
2. If the belief in Buddhism leads to more good works and a reduction in suffering, wouldn't the propagation of the message lead to more positive karma?
3. Against the march of atheism and evangelical religion, Buddhism will become increasingly marganalised if you persist in passivity.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
1. Medical science is able to explain how deformities are formed. This is the reason, for example, pregnant mothers shouldn't smoke.
why dun you do a survey to check with all deformed child, their mothers are smokers, past and present. in the past, most female never smoke.
this is very good example of karma. you may ask this �美旋居士, her brother was having the same opinion as you. He was kicked by many spirits and reported to police, and now following her sister to chant amitofo.
八月åˆ�七那一天他往生。è·�离他往生å‰�三个月，三个月å‰�就知é�“，那个时间ã€�æ—¥å�那么清楚，八月åˆ�七。三个月之å‰�写的，写了å��å‡ ä¸ªå…«æœˆåˆ�七，预知时至ï¼�
　　
　　从他生病开始å�¬ç»�念佛，差ä¸�多是四年的时间。他走了，走了之å�Žï¼Œæ–°åŠ å�¡å±…å£«æž—å‡ºçŽ°äº†ä¸€ä¸ªå¥‡æ€ªçš„äº‹æƒ…ã€‚æœ‰ä¸€å¤©å¿µä½›å ‚ï¼Œæ�œç¾Žæ—‹å±…士，我以å‰�ä¸�认识她，这个事情出æ�¥ä¹‹å�Žï¼Œæ�œå±…士æ�¥æ‰¾è¿‡æˆ‘。出什么事情？陈光别居士的冤亲债主，ä¸�少人，这都ä¸�是活人，是鬼é‚，ä¸�å°‘ï¼�到居士林去了，这些冤亲债主原æ�¥éƒ½åœ¨é™ˆå…‰åˆ«å®¶é‡Œï¼Œä½†æ˜¯é™ˆå…‰åˆ«æ¯�天å�¬ç»�ã€�念佛，他们ä¸�敢动他。å�¬ç»�念佛有护法神，所以冤亲债主虽然在æ—�边围绕著，ä¸�敢动他。看到他往生了，这些冤亲债主都感动了。
　　
　　所以他们跟著法师，我们æ¯�天派法师去助念，四个人一ç�，轮æµ�去，这些冤亲债主跟著法师回到居士林。他说居士林的护法神没有障ç¢�他，他说我们到居士林æ�¥ç»�对ä¸�会找麻烦，我们ä¸�敢找麻烦，我们æ�¥æ±‚皈ä¾�。他说我们看到陈光别è€�居士往生，我们都é�žå¸¸æ¬¢å–œï¼Œæ�¥æ±‚皈ä¾�。那个时候我æ£åœ¨é¦™æ¸¯ï¼Œå¥½åƒ�是全师打电è¯�给我，说是鬼é‚è¦�皈ä¾�，我就跟他说赶紧替他皈ä¾�。http://www.bcs.edu.sg/forum/index.php?topic=509.0 -
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
1. Medical science is able to explain how deformities are formed. This is the reason, for example, pregnant mothers shouldn't smoke.
2. Going back to my original Point (2), if I am born with a serious physical deformity, the concept of karma will strike me as grossly unfair. Why should I be made to suffer for the works of my previous lives -- over which I have no control at all?
3. If Buddhists don't eat animals because of these reasons, is eating oysters allowed? From what I've read, people can only be reincarnated into sentient creatures, and lots of shellfish are believed to be non-sentient.
2. Does it make sense for someone in jail to say, 'why should I be made to suffer for my burglary last year?' He may even say 'I'm a different person now! I am no longer the same person as last year. I'm changed. I am a good man now.' But the fact is the causality has ripened and yes, he has no control over them.
3. Vegetarianism is not compulsory for Buddhists, however if you eat meat, the Buddha tells us to avoid eating meat that we have personally killed, ordered others to kill, or witnessed the killing (as an example: frozen meat is allowed as it meets these three criterias of not being killed, etc). Why? Karmic deeds are by intention - if we have no intention to kill the meat we eat, the negative karma is not formed. Karmic deeds are of three kinds: mental, speech, and bodily, but they must be intentional and volitional - and such volition may be wholesome, unwholesome, or pure. Even though it may be logically said that we are indirectly supporting the business of killing, nonetheless no direct karmic link is involved. That is why Buddha told us to eat meat only when meeting those three conditions. If you are into Mahayana Buddhism and wish to cultivate great compassion, then vegetarianism is highly recommended.
But to answer your question: oysters are sentient animals and so we should avoid eating those that are cooked alive. Likewise, try to avoid eating seafood that are ordered fresh since it means you have ordered them to be killed.
-
This I think is a fundamental issue. Because human beings have self-awareness and empathy, we are able to imagine ourselves in the shoes of other people.
are you so sure of your self-awareness and empathy level is ultimate level- can people exploit your empathy and self-awareness and make you imagine yourself in the shoes of them
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
I spend a lot of time debating Christians, and so far the responses in this Buddhist forum have been relatively weak. Don't get me wrong -- I think some of the core ideas of Buddhism are substantially more defensible than Christianity's, but I just don't think the Buddhist community is well-equipped to defend the religon.
Authoritative doctrine seems to be a common position here, i.e. "ABC is correct because so-and-so said so". But despite the statement by Khenpo Tsultrim Lodro, I would ask you to consider the following:
1. If you regard Buddhism as the truth, then shouldn't you attempt to share that with others -- even those who have no initial interest in it? Should an educator stop teaching math to an uninterested student?
2. If the belief in Buddhism leads to more good works and a reduction in suffering, wouldn't the propagation of the message lead to more positive karma?
3. Against the march of atheism and evangelical religion, Buddhism will become increasingly marganalised if you persist in passivity.
any religion in history that did not shed blood in the name of religion?
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
I spend a lot of time debating Christians, and so far the responses in this Buddhist forum have been relatively weak. Don't get me wrong -- I think some of the core ideas of Buddhism are substantially more defensible than Christianity's, but I just don't think the Buddhist community is well-equipped to defend the religon.
Authoritative doctrine seems to be a common position here, i.e. "ABC is correct because so-and-so said so". But despite the statement by Khenpo Tsultrim Lodro, I would ask you to consider the following:
1. If you regard Buddhism as the truth, then shouldn't you attempt to share that with others -- even those who have no initial interest in it? Should an educator stop teaching math to an uninterested student?
2. If the belief in Buddhism leads to more good works and a reduction in suffering, wouldn't the propagation of the message lead to more positive karma?
3. Against the march of atheism and evangelical religion, Buddhism will become increasingly marganalised if you persist in passivity.
If you are not receptive, then there is no point debating. Besides, there has been ample sharing around.
Buddhism is not about good works. You do not understand the first thing about Buddhism. Which is what i've been trying to explain before.
It is a very remote possibility that Buddhism will become marginalised just because of some sceptical or unreceptive group.
Your disability to accept karma - you can go debate with the hindus or the many other religious groups who believe in karma. As we are not the only group who believe.
-
karma is not equal to buddhism/dharma. Don't equate them. If a person defend karma, he is not defending Buddhism actually. you can't really attack Buddhism, because Buddhism has attacked itself very well and its final tenets are actually beyond logical attack. Within us, we have the Madhyamaka school. You can go study that. And if you can better the attacks of those panditas/scholars in that school, then u can try it here.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
2. Does it make sense for someone in jail to say, 'why should I be made to suffer for my burglary last year?' He may even say 'I'm a different person now! I am no longer the same person as last year. I'm changed. I am a good man now.' But the fact is the causality has ripened and yes, he has no control over them.
3. Vegetarianism is not compulsory for Buddhists, however if you eat meat, the Buddha tells us to avoid eating meat that we have personally killed, ordered others to kill, or witnessed the killing (as an example: frozen meat is allowed as it meets these three criterias of not being killed, etc). Why? Karmic deeds are by intention - if we have no intention to kill the meat we eat, the negative karma is not formed. Karmic deeds are of three kinds: mental, speech, and bodily, but they must be intentional and volitional - and such volition may be wholesome, unwholesome, or pure. Even though it may be logically said that we are indirectly supporting the business of killing, nonetheless no direct karmic link is involved. That is why Buddha told us to eat meat only when meeting those three conditions. If you are into Mahayana Buddhism and wish to cultivate great compassion, then vegetarianism is highly recommended.
But to answer your question: oysters are sentient animals and so we should avoid eating those that are cooked alive. Likewise, try to avoid eating seafood that are ordered fresh since it means you have ordered them to be killed.
This comment about someone being put in jail for a past crime, and the earlier thought experiment about amnesia are both very good arguments, I think.
I'll answer them in two ways:
- Neither of these examples are sufficently similar to rebirth. Even if someone has completely changed, his environment has not. The victim would still demand that the punishment be meted out. In rebirth, it is completely different -- someone born with a disability is serving a punishment for a crime that "he" did not commit. At the same time, the victims of the crime have no awareness, and can take no comfort from the knowledge that justice is being served. What then is the point in visiting karma on a new life?
- That said, fundamentally, my position is that retributive justice is unnecessary. Given our current knowledge of the human mind, punishments should be meted out for deterrence (of self and others) and for rehabilitation, but not for retribution. So in your example, if we can confirm beyond doubt that a burglar or murderer has turned over a new leaf, then prima facie we should let him out. It is better that he serves society as a free person than for him to waste his life in prison.
Finally, on your last point, why do you say that oysters have sentience if they have no brain and no nervous system?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
any religion in history that did not shed blood in the name of religion?
I don't know. There are lots and lots of strange religions in the world.