Blood Sacrifice
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
1. Buddhism doesn't contradict evolution... But at the same time we say that there are living beings existing even before the advent of lifeforms on this planet and those consciousness of subtler planes take rebirth in this plane when the conditions have ripen. As Loppon Namdrol puts it: "if you accept the bardo, then you can accept that there are beings born with subtle bodies. As biological lifeforms advanced, beings with karma to be reborn in those forms were born here."
2. Your link doesn't work.1. Does Buddhism affirms the truth of evolution aka molecules to microbiologist evolution?
2. Just checked, working leh.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. If ignorance is beginningless, that means it is eternal. Why should this state be considered inferior to being enlightened since it preceded enlightenment?
2. Your explanation for moral laws is flawed, especially when you try to base it on evolution. Again the same naturalistic fallacy is committed in your argument. In a survivial of the fittest environment, there is nothing to say that it is wrong to take from you by force if survival is the purpose. The best explanation would be that man is created as a moral being. Laws are necessary in a fallen world, and laws are to show that man has broken the law. Yes, kings and kingdoms have changed and toppled, but this only shows the sinful nature of man.
3. Why do people wish to be free from suffering if ignorance has been the eternal condition? Apparently telling people that they have no real existence do not solve the problem. Buddha may have been enlightened but he still fell sick and died. In other words, he was still subject to death and suffering. Compare this with Christ, whom though He also suffered and died, rose physically from the dead to show His victory over death.
4. Apart from there being a moral law to be accountable, why should anyone be held for an action that leads to unwholesome effects? And why do anything that goes against the ignorance state which is the primordial or beginingless state?
5. Babies grow because, like all living things, they are designed to grow, unless they have some problems that inhibit growth. A Christian view of life is that while suffering and death exists in a fallen world, it is not the way things should be, thus it would be consistent to want to see the end of death and suffering. But in a natural law universe where things are just the way they are, why go against nature?
1. Whether ignorance preceded enlightenment or not has nothing to do with 'inferiority' or 'superiority'. No ideas where you get that notion. Ignorance is not eternal because it arises due to causes and conditions (i.e. a previous instance of ignorance and defilements), and it can end through the Buddhist path. The mindstream (arising and ceasing and re-arising moment by moment according to causes and conditions) driven by ignorance however is beginningless - beginningless is not the same as eternal.
2. I didn't mention anything about survival of the fittest. But it is true that laws are enacted based on circumstances.
3. What has wishing to be free from suffering got anything to do with whether ignorance is beginningless? The fact is people wish to be free from suffering, that's all. And there's a way.
4. Karma is a natural law and nobody can escape from it even if it takes lifetimes to play out. Just like nobody can escape from cancer or at the very least negative health effects from chain smoking.
5. In Buddhism, there is no 'things are the way it should be'. There is no 'should' or 'should not'. It is just plain cause and effect - if you touch hot charcoal, there will be pain. And naturally you will want to avoid pain. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Does Buddhism affirms the truth of evolution aka molecules to microbiologist evolution?
2. Just checked, working leh.
1. I cannot speak for all Buddhists, and since evolution is a rather recent scientific study the Buddha was of course unable to comment on it. But I find it does not contradict the basis of Buddhism. The Buddha's job is just to teach us about suffering and the end of suffering, his job is not to teach us evolution or science of medicine or arts or mathematics or biology or chemistry or physics... these are worldly subjects that are best dealt by scientists. But we must never go against science as that would be denial of facts and reality.
As Dalai Lama says, “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
2. Press F5 on that page. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Does Buddhism affirms the truth of evolution aka molecules to microbiologist evolution?
fyi, what i am saying is, human came from ape is nonsensical. to what i know from discover channel, science has not found the "missing link" between human and ape. i forgot the number, but how many millions/billions of years ago, human were already walking on two legs. and between the short interval time period, ape cannot possiblity "evolve" into human/homo sapiens, the time is too short.
i am not refering to evolution that's related to inter-breeding of species or slight mutation. in Buddhism, the different between human and animal realm is human have morality.
if, i mean "if" one day, science can come up with artificial intelligence robots or create "life" from mineral, or the already possible cloning, it doesn't contradict that rebirth of a previous lifeform to the new life could happen in that format instead of womb-birth.
/\
-
Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm:
Umm, actually Humans evolved from earlier homonids. Apes evolved along different lines than humans, branching off from the hominidea clade. No one who studies paleo-anthropology would say that humans evolved from apes.
The phyisical form we call "homo sapiens" at present is 100% a product of evolution.
Evolution is not merely a theory, it is a demonstrable fact that can be empirically reproduced in labs. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
2. If nothing exists then there is no change to talk about. To talk about the fact of change without addressing the existence of things on which change can work on is still an incomplete answer. Or perhaps it is an issue that is being sidestepped to avoid the conclusion that there is a Creator? It does not follow that if God exists then He must also be subject to change. Existence precedes change, but you have put it the other way round. Consider the belief in evolution. Why do evolution use the tactic of saying that abiogenesis is different from evolution? Only so because they can then ASSUME the existence of life, on which biological evolution (change) can logically and chronologically proceed.
Existence precedes(before) change or change supercede all Existence is saying the same thing what. it is not to say before or after. change is a function of existence. so they should be together. as before change there's absolutly Nothing, even ur god. don't say ur god don't think.
evolution is not the change i am refering. the change i am more into is movement of thoughts/action/intention (aka karma in Budhism) vs no movement at all, as i am refering to a mind source...one thought to the next is change...as long as got lifes, there's change, hence karma, hence dissatisfaction/dukkha.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
3. If the original condition was not ignorance, then what was the condition giving rise to ignorance? If everything was perfect, then why imperfect come into the picture? Again wave and ocean not good example. Wave is caused by wind conditions blowing over the ocean. Wave is just effect of wind upon ocean.
u want me to really say Mind/Dharmakaya/Buddhanature and sentient/unenlightened beings to replace ocean and wave respectively, then u satisfy is it? haha, why can't u relate, my similes?
i meant imperfection and perfection come together as a package. both came together at the very same time. within Mind got yin and yang if i may use a different word. in case u bias against imperfection. nothing wrong with yin or yang. nothing wrong with imperfection/ignorance.
As u simply need imperfection to be perfect. :)
Perfection/Enlightenment is to Know in Buddhism. ignorance is just not knowing it.
i'm sure, ur all also teach that god use certain ways to let "us" learn etc.
in order for an ore to become gold, u need to undergo intense heat, or "suffering". same as charcoal and diamond. so again in case u cannot relate to the simile, i say in Buddhism, in order for sentient beings to become Buddhas, they need to learn the truth and undergo practices per se.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
That God has a "time-table" is just my using "skilful means" to communicate to you. God is timeless. But God can act in time, just as He can act in creation. From our human time-bound perspective, God has set a time when all things would be restored.
Thanks for the replies. Glad to see you got all the answers u want in Christianity. Sorry to tell you that it still doesn't seem to complete my questions.
Man is so sinful yet he does the talking for God...
btw, wishing you advanced CNY... huat ahh
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
God has set a time when all things would be restored.
as in?i want to see if it's macroscopically or just microscopically, in Buddhism.
/\
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Thanks for the replies. Glad to see you got all the answers u want in Christianity. Sorry to tell you that it still doesn't seem to complete my questions.
Man is so sinful yet he does the talking for God...
btw, wishing you advanced CNY... huat ahh
1. If you have more questions I am happy to try to answer them.
2. God can use sinners for His glory. That's what redemption is all about.
3. Thanks. A Happy CNY to you and all Chinese folks here too.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
as in?i want to see if it's macroscopically or just microscopically, in Buddhism.
/\
As in the end of this present age. As in God would come and destroy evil. As in there will be a judgement of all living and the dead before God. Read Revelation for more details! Akan Datang!
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
Existence precedes(before) change or change supercede all Existence is saying the same thing what. it is not to say before or after. change is a function of existence. so they should be together. as before change there's absolutly Nothing, even ur god. don't say ur god don't think.
evolution is not the change i am refering. the change i am more into is movement of thoughts/action/intention (aka karma in Budhism) vs no movement at all, as i am refering to a mind source...one thought to the next is change...as long as got lifes, there's change, hence karma, hence dissatisfaction/dukkha.
/\
1. Incorrect, putting the cart before the horse and putting the horse before the cart is two completely different things, I assure you!
2. If there's absolutely nothing, then it should remain so. No change to speak of. No cause no conditions. Just nothing. Change is not necessarily a function of existence. It is not impossible that something can exists unchanged. In fact, change only applies to contingent beings/entities. Why should thinking be considered change?
3. There's good change and bad change, so why should change be dissatisfaction?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
u want me to really say Mind/Dharmakaya/Buddhanature and sentient/unenlightened beings to replace ocean and wave respectively, then u satisfy is it? haha, why can't u relate, my similes?
i meant imperfection and perfection come together as a package. both came together at the very same time. within Mind got yin and yang if i may use a different word. in case u bias against imperfection. nothing wrong with yin or yang. nothing wrong with imperfection/ignorance.
As u simply need imperfection to be perfect. :)
Perfection/Enlightenment is to Know in Buddhism. ignorance is just not knowing it.
i'm sure, ur all also teach that god use certain ways to let "us" learn etc.
in order for an ore to become gold, u need to undergo intense heat, or "suffering". same as charcoal and diamond. so again in case u cannot relate to the simile, i say in Buddhism, in order for sentient beings to become Buddhas, they need to learn the truth and undergo practices per se.
/\
1. I beg to differ. Which comes first, truth or error? Counterfeit coins or genuine coins? If there's nothing wrong with ignorance, then why get enlightenment? What's wrong with not knowing then?
2. But I thought you or someone else said that we were all Buddhas to begin with?
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm:
Umm, actually Humans evolved from earlier homonids. Apes evolved along different lines than humans, branching off from the hominidea clade. No one who studies paleo-anthropology would say that humans evolved from apes.
The phyisical form we call "homo sapiens" at present is 100% a product of evolution.
Evolution is not merely a theory, it is a demonstrable fact that can be empirically reproduced in labs.What's the difference between saying that men evolved from apes or from apelike creatures?
Which part of evolution is demonstrable in the lab?
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
fyi, what i am saying is, human came from ape is nonsensical. to what i know from discover channel, science has not found the "missing link" between human and ape. i forgot the number, but how many millions/billions of years ago, human were already walking on two legs. and between the short interval time period, ape cannot possiblity "evolve" into human/homo sapiens, the time is too short.
i am not refering to evolution that's related to inter-breeding of species or slight mutation. in Buddhism, the different between human and animal realm is human have morality.
if, i mean "if" one day, science can come up with artificial intelligence robots or create "life" from mineral, or the already possible cloning, it doesn't contradict that rebirth of a previous lifeform to the new life could happen in that format instead of womb-birth.
/\
I truly agree with you that the notion of men evolving from apes(like) creatures is nonsense. Yet this is taught as fact in schools and in media.
Yes, humans have morality but animals do not. This would be very consistent with the Bible's teaching that man is made in God's image.
If humans can create AI or life, it only means that you need intelligence to get life, which again points to intelligent design, not pure natural causes.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
What's the difference between saying that men evolved from apes or from apelike creatures?
Which part of evolution is demonstrable in the lab?
They are not exactly apelike. They are more human-like than you think, and are capable of primitive languages, making tools, cooking, hunting, making shelters etc - traits not shared by apes or any other animals.
The ancestors of homo sapiens:
(Homo Erectus:)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Five_evidences_of_evolution -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
1. Whether ignorance preceded enlightenment or not has nothing to do with 'inferiority' or 'superiority'. No ideas where you get that notion. Ignorance is not eternal because it arises due to causes and conditions (i.e. a previous instance of ignorance and defilements), and it can end through the Buddhist path. The mindstream (arising and ceasing and re-arising moment by moment according to causes and conditions) driven by ignorance however is beginningless - beginningless is not the same as eternal.
2. I didn't mention anything about survival of the fittest. But it is true that laws are enacted based on circumstances.
3. What has wishing to be free from suffering got anything to do with whether ignorance is beginningless? The fact is people wish to be free from suffering, that's all. And there's a way.
4. Karma is a natural law and nobody can escape from it even if it takes lifetimes to play out. Just like nobody can escape from cancer or at the very least negative health effects from chain smoking.
5. In Buddhism, there is no 'things are the way it should be'. There is no 'should' or 'should not'. It is just plain cause and effect - if you touch hot charcoal, there will be pain. And naturally you will want to avoid pain.1. If ignorance has been the beginingless state of things, then wouldn't that be the natural state? What's the difference between the term beginingless and eternal? If ignorance arises due to conditions, then ignorance is contingent. But what is it contingent upon? And how can it be contingent yet eternal? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/beginningless
2. Legal laws are enacted based on circumstances, but stll they are ultimately based on moral laws that are discovered. No human made the law that murder is wrong. No human decided for everyone else that murder is wrong. Murder is considered wrong every where.
3. If ignorance has been the eternal state, then so has suffering. And since that is the natural law, why go against it?
4. It is true that nobody can escape from natural laws. So is it impossible to escape from karma and be free of it?
5. The idea of cause and effect is certainly not unique to Buddhism. Causes have effects, this is not disputed or denied at all. The question is whether adequate causes are identified for certain effects. For example, why do we feel pain? That's because we have nerve cells. Humans therefore are "hardwired" to feel pain and respond physically to external things that hurt us. What accounts for that? To say causes and conditions is not to say much.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
They are not exactly apelike. They are more human-like than you think, and are capable of primitive languages, making tools, cooking, hunting, making shelters etc - traits not shared by apes or any other animals.
The ancestors of homo sapiens:
(Homo Erectus:)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Five_evidences_of_evolutionThose are artists' drawings. But what is the actual hard evidence? A piece of tooth or a fragment of bone?
I submit to you that there is no such thing as an intermediate between ape, apelike creatures, and man. All fossils found are either belonging to ape or man.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. If ignorance has been the beginingless state of things, then wouldn't that be the natural state? What's the difference between the term beginingless and eternal? If ignorance arises due to conditions, then ignorance is contingent. But what is it contingent upon? And how can it be contingent yet eternal? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/beginningless
2. Legal laws are enacted based on circumstances, but stll they are ultimately based on moral laws that are discovered. No human made the law that murder is wrong. No human decided for everyone else that murder is wrong. Murder is considered wrong every where.
3. If ignorance has been the eternal state, then so has suffering. And since that is the natural law, why go against it?
4. It is true that nobody can escape from natural laws. So is it impossible to escape from karma and be free of it?
5. The idea of cause and effect is certainly not unique to Buddhism. Causes have effects, this is not disputed or denied at all. The question is whether adequate causes are identified for certain effects. For example, why do we feel pain? That's because we have nerve cells. Humans therefore are "hardwired" to feel pain and respond physically to external things that hurt us. What accounts for that? To say causes and conditions is not to say much.
1. Natural has the connotation of being inherent, not causal, etc. But yes, ignorance is conditioned, is dependent on conditions, and those causes and be removed. That is the purpose of the whole Buddhist path.
Here the sutta teaches:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.htmlIgnorance
Saying "Good, friend," having delighted in and approved of Ven. Sariputta's words, the monks asked him a further question: "Would there be another line of reasoning by which a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma?"
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns ignorance, the origination of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance, then he is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma.
"And what is ignorance? What is the origination of ignorance? What is the cessation of ignorance? What is the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance?
"Any lack of knowledge with reference to stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the origination of stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the cessation of stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress. This is called ignorance.
"From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of ignorance. And the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
"Now, when a disciple of the noble ones discerns ignorance, the origination of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance in this way, when — having entirely abandoned passion-obsession, having abolished aversion-obsession, having uprooted the view-&-conceit obsession 'I am'; having abandoned ignorance & given rise to clear knowing — he has put an end to suffering & stress right in the here-&-now, it is to this extent, too, that a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma."
2. I would rather say that murder is causing harm and pain and suffering, and because nobody wishes to be killed, and because anyone with a kind heart would not wish anyone else to be killed, laws are enacted out of a compassionate, well wishing heart, or sometimes out of fear, etc. Laws are enacted on the basis of whether an action is unwholesome or wholesome...
3. Ignorance and suffering is not eternal - they are without beginning as a stream that arises and ceases and re-arises out of latent conditions again and again, but those causes and conditions can be treated and ended.
4. Yes. Just like you cannot escape the natural effects of cancer Only if you chain smoke (you cannot escape the effects of smoking), and the solution is just to stop or not start smoking, likewise you can avoid karma by no longer planting the seeds of karma. But karma can only truly be 'escaped' in liberation. The noble eightfold path is the way.
5. Yes. Buddha is very precise and teaches us the twelve links of dependent origination, both forward and reverse. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
As in the end of this present age. As in God would come and destroy evil. As in there will be a judgement of all living and the dead before God. Read Revelation for more details! Akan Datang!
sound made up frictional to me.anyway, that in Buddhism, is only microscopical, we also have smaller or middle or greater "end days" on earth. greater "end days" is when hell, and the all lower realms are ended. like in a person that's birth, old age, illness and death. the earth also undergo birth, old age, illness and death, but we call it ���空. 20 years a person live in the birth stage, and another 20 for old age stage and another 20 for illness and finally another 20 for death stage. each 20 years belong to the middle end days. and the end of 1 year is the smaller end days. then we magnify that on earth, earth or the universe also have the 20+20+20+20 kalpas/age, but in a longer period.
but even this greater "end days" on earth is microscopical, as there are countless universes/earth out there. all this are existence in play. new universes are form and old ones die everyday. this is in line with science. Buddha already talk about it 2500-3000 years ago.
macroscopical part is the talk on illusion of all this samsaric existence. Enlightenment is the "end days" of the entire samsaric existence. maybe we can say the return to .....
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Those are artists' drawings. But what is the actual hard evidence? A piece of tooth or a fragment of bone?
I submit to you that there is no such thing as an intermediate between ape, apelike creatures, and man. All fossils found are either belonging to ape or man.
u misunderstood Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm. he do say homo sapiens don't evolve from apes. but Australopithecus(Lucy) to homo sapiens to modern human form are only slight "mutation", not major. yes they do have Australopithecus, homo sapiens' skull, tooth, bone and all as hard evidence./\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Incorrect, putting the cart before the horse and putting the horse before the cart is two completely different things, I assure you!
2. If there's absolutely nothing, then it should remain so. No change to speak of. No cause no conditions. Just nothing. Change is not necessarily a function of existence. It is not impossible that something can exists unchanged. In fact, change only applies to contingent beings/entities. Why should thinking be considered change?
3. There's good change and bad change, so why should change be dissatisfaction?
when i say supercede, i mean cannot leave without. maybe the word "supercede" is misused. now i am saying they are together or neither who's first or second, like the egg and chicken dilemma.yes before both, there's nothing at all. i am still standing the saying Change as one thought process from one to the next. by that definition, Change is a function of existence of mind beings. if something exist unchanged, then that's Stillness of thought. in fact, in Buddhism we are striving to achieve that, kind of samadhi/level of meditation in order to end change, end suffering, end karma per se. but the question is, is that possible? thoughts will flow endless, but not attached to the continuous thoughts is what can be achieved. that's as good as ending change, ending samsara per se.
good change and bad change all lead to dissatisfactory. say eating your favorite food. is good change, but if u keep eating the same food day after day, u will become tired of it. see? good had change bad. bad no need to say is dissatisfactory.
Example, when hungry, i am experiencing suffering. If one continue to stay hungry for 7 days, one will experience more suffering, not happiness. So suffering is real, and happiness is false.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. I beg to differ. Which comes first, truth or error? Counterfeit coins or genuine coins? If there's nothing wrong with ignorance, then why get enlightenment? What's wrong with not knowing then?
2. But I thought you or someone else said that we were all Buddhas to begin with?
your Counterfeit coins or genuine coins simile is a good one. but it's not about which is first or second. as there's no second at all.
my simile is the moon reflected on the water. the moon in the water is just a reflection of the real moon. there's only One Real moon! the reflection is fake and illusive, yet it came from the moon. without the moon, there's no reflection.
not knowing can have two meaning, in a higher understanding, it is to remain Stillness of thoughts, don't want to know any more and let it flow; the other as u are thinking is stupidity. not knowing although is cause for samsara, it's also a cause for enlightenment.
yes, there's only the Moon(God/Truth for u to understand). the reflections or creations or error are fake/illusory. hence i mentioned, enlightenment is when the wave realised that its the ocean. alll return to the ocean, the moon.
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
when i say supercede, i mean cannot leave without. maybe the word "supercede" is misused. now i am saying they are together or neither who's first or second, like the egg and chicken dilemma.yes before both, there's nothing at all. i am still standing the saying Change as one thought process from one to the next. by that definition, Change is a function of existence of mind beings. if something exist unchanged, then that's Stillness of thought. in fact, in Buddhism we are striving to achieve that, kind of samadhi/level of meditation in order to end change, end suffering, end karma per se. but the question is, is that possible? thoughts will flow endless, but not attached to the continuous thoughts is what can be achieved. that's as good as ending change, ending samsara per se.
good change and bad change all lead to dissatisfactory. say eating your favorite food. is good change, but if u keep eating the same food day after day, u will become tired of it. see? good had change bad. bad no need to say is dissatisfactory.
Example, when hungry, i am experiencing suffering. If one continue to stay hungry for 7 days, one will experience more suffering, not happiness. So suffering is real, and happiness is false.
/\
1. There's really no chicken and egg dilemma. The chicken logically came first.
2. If there's nothing, then how can something come from nothing?
3. It does not follow that for there to be an unchanging entity requires there to be complete stillness or no thought.
4. No one is denying the reality of suffering or happiness. But if there is no self, then who is suffering? Or should we say, like AEN suggested, "what" is suffering?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. There's really no chicken and egg dilemma. The chicken logically came first.
2. If there's nothing, then how can something come from nothing?
3. It does not follow that for there to be an unchanging entity requires there to be complete stillness or no thought.
4. No one is denying the reality of suffering or happiness. But if there is no self, then who is suffering? Or should we say, like AEN suggested, "what" is suffering?
4. No, 'what is suffering' is simply saying 'who is suffering' in another way. My point is that there is no 'what' or 'who' behind suffering. When suffering arises, there is only suffering without sufferer. Since Buddha never said "You suffer" or "He suffer" or "I suffer" (other than as conventional speech) but "suffering arises", the correct question should be asked then: what is the causes and conditions in which suffering arises?
Everything arises through causes and conditions, without agency/controller/perceiver/experiencer.