What About Buddhism Then?

sombaht

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Can it be tested scientifically? Conduct a study on a slug and confirm if he was one bad ass human in a past life?:D

Erm, I think you are confusing the concept or karma with the belief in reincarnation. At least that's how it reads to me.

Cheers,
sombaht

sombaht

sup_dude wrote: »

I like this thread

It is good isnt it!

Cheers,
sombaht

Ave Sodalis

sombaht wrote: »

It is good isnt it!

Cheers,
sombaht

Indeed it is I'm discovering people I didn't know existed on boards

Ave Sodalis

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Can it be tested scientifically? Conduct a study on a slug and confirm if he was one bad ass human in a past life?:D

I think, by reincarnation, it's meant that the energy we have as life, the energy that makes us move, jump, blink etc, has to go somewhere when you die because energy can't be created or destroyed. This energy goes into the ground, where it is used by plants, which are eaten by animals. These animals then have this energy (and atoms that made us), so are apart of us. We then may eat those animals (or the plants) and have some of that energy/atoms too so when we die, we disperse and become part of everything else. I like to think when we die, we're not gone, we're just a little less organized

Grayson

sup_dude wrote: »

I think, by reincarnation, it's meant that the energy we have as life, the energy that makes us move, jump, blink etc, has to go somewhere when you die because energy can't be created or destroyed. This energy goes into the ground, where it is used by plants, which are eaten by animals. These animals then have this energy (and atoms that made us), so are apart of us. We then may eat those animals (or the plants) and have some of that energy/atoms too so when we die, we disperse and become part of everything else. I like to think when we die, we're not gone, we're just a little less organized

That is the second worst understanding of physics I've even encountered.

Ave Sodalis

Grayson wrote: »

That is the second worst understanding of physics I've even encountered.

Maybe I didn't explain it right, I was basing it on this http://uglicoyote.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/i-want-a-physicist-to-speak-at-my-funeral/

BizzyC

Well Thai buddhists believe you live multiple lives, and that your actions impact your next life.

For example, if your partner cheats on you, it's probably because you cheated on your partner in your last life.
Or if you steal £5 from someone, you're more likely to be the victim of a similar-scale crime.

When you think about that, Karma has to be a supernatural force in their eyes.

nozzferrahhtoo

Paddycrumlinman wrote: »

That's a fair point however the thing with Buddhism is nothing is set in stone, question everything and only settle for what makes sense to yourself.

I would however add warning labels to a statement like that. One thing our species has learned over the centuries is that what is true often makes no sense at all, while what is entirely false makes lots.

Philologos before he quite the forum and ran off used to defend his Christianity with little more than "It makes sense to me while atheism doesn't". Clearly "It makes sense to me" does not an argument make and substantiates nothing.

The further and further we progress in science for example the less and less "sense" it makes, to the point we are now getting oft cited quotations from Theoretical Physics saying things like "If you think you understand String Theory... you do not understand String Theory".

Paddycrumlinman wrote: »

Karma is basic fundamental law. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Newton's laws of motion states this for example.

Yet hate and violence tend to breed more hate and violence, which is not exactly Equal and opposite. Again not a disagreement with your posts, which I am enjoying, but more a warning label. The only idea of "Karma" I subscribe to is the common one that your actions influence others in ways that will come back on you.

The concept of "Karma" many people have an issue with is the one where your actions go into some Debit-Credit Ledger book in the sky and while you are in positive "Karma" the universe somehow actively seeks to influence events and happenstance in your favor. Evidence for _that_ kind of malarkey is worse than just "thin on the ground".

Everything else you said however, especially in post #46 rings very true and interesting and useful to my ear.

Three Seasons

I think there is nothing really supernatural about Buddhism as it was meant to be originally com

Ave Sodalis

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would however add warning labels to a statement like that. One thing our species has learned over the centuries is that what is true often makes no sense at all, while what is entirely false makes lots.

Philologos before he quite the forum and ran off used to defend his Christianity with little more than "It makes sense to me while atheism doesn't". Clearly "It makes sense to me" does not an argument make and substantiates nothing.

The further and further we progress in science for example the less and less "sense" it makes, to the point we are now getting oft cited quotations from Theoretical Physics saying things like "If you think you understand String Theory... you do not understand String Theory".



Yet hate and violence tend to breed more hate and violence, which is not exactly Equal and opposite. Again not a disagreement with your posts, which I am enjoying, but more a warning label. The only idea of "Karma" I subscribe to is the common one that your actions influence others in ways that will come back on you.

The concept of "Karma" many people have an issue with is the one where your actions go into some Debit-Credit Ledger book in the sky and while you are in positive "Karma" the universe somehow actively seeks to influence events and happenstance in your favor. Evidence for _that_ kind of malarkey is worse than just "thin on the ground".

Everything else you said however, especially in post #46 rings very true and interesting and useful to my ear.

I like your post but I'm just wondering about the bold line. Do you not feel that, as the Dalai Lama is traveling and working with scientists, that the further we delve into science, it has the potential to make more sense?

sombaht

BizzyC wrote: »

Well Thai buddhists believe you live multiple lives, and that your actions impact your next life.

For example, if your partner cheats on you, it's probably because you cheated on your partner in your last life.
Or if you steal £5 from someone, you're more likely to be the victim of a similar-scale crime.

When you think about that, Karma has to be a supernatural force in their eyes.

Karma means "intentional action" and refers to the universal law of cause and effect. Karma is created not only by physical action but also by thoughts and words.

Just as action causes reaction, karma causes effects that come back to the original actor. Karma also tends to generate more karma that reaches out in all directions. We bear the consequences of the karma we create, but everyone around us is affected by our intentional acts as well, just as we are affected by theirs.

Buddhists do not think of karma as "destiny" or as some kind of cosmic retribution system. Although the fruits of "good" karma might be pleasant and beneficial, all karma keeps one entangled in the cycle of death and rebirth.

Actions free from desire, hate and delusion do not create karma. The enlightened being ceases to create karma and thus is liberated from rebirth.

See nothing supernatural about it at all.

Cheers,
sombaht

nozzferrahhtoo

sup_dude wrote: »

I like your post but I'm just wondering about the bold line. Do you not feel that, as the Dalai Lama is traveling and working with scientists, that the further we delve into science, it has the potential to make more sense?

I have no idea what the Dalai Lama has to do with Science I have to admit, nor how he is likely to help people make sense of it. All I am referring to is the fact that as we push the frontiers of science as we have been, we find all kinds of things that are becoming more and more... counter intuitive.

But I would not limit my point to just science.... I was just using science as an example because it is a field I know well enough.... in general I would warn against merely relying on what "makes sense" without the application of a lot more rigor than that. Otherwise one risks going down a path of subscribing to all kinds of egregious nonsense.... as was the case with the aforementioned Philologos before he ran off.

Three Seasons

I think there is nothing really supernatural about Buddhism as it was meant to be originally coming from the Buddha.

The Buddha believed we are all the same life force inside IMO hence when we die we are still alive in other people. This IMO has been misinterpreted.

Karma also IMO is not really supernatural. I believe what the Buddha referred to was the ego and your state of consciousness. When you aren't present and immersed in your mind made self you have less empathy and are more likely to be angry, resentful and jealous.

When you are absorbed by your ego you attract other people's egos and the greater likelihood of conflict that brings. Nothing supernatural about it whatsoever.

nozzferrahhtoo

sombaht wrote: »

Just as action causes reaction, karma causes effects that come back to the original actor. Karma also tends to generate more karma that reaches out in all directions. We bear the consequences of the karma we create, but everyone around us is affected by our intentional acts as well, just as we are affected by theirs.

This description of it is pretty dilute. It sounds like an all encompassing place holder term for a variety of things. If you treat someone badly and they treat you badly in return..... or if you run at someone to hit them and in fact trip and fall and smash your face.... or, or, or... the list could be endless.

All these things you are just grouping under one catch all term. Not that that is a bad thing but one should be aware that the more things a word refers to the more dilute, and hence the less meaningful and useful, it becomes.

And awareness of that is important I think because as with religions and other such fields a common approach by charlatans selling their brand is to find ways of saying lots of things while not actually saying anything at all. What Micheal Shermer and Daniel Dennett like to refer to as a "Deepity". Something that seems superficially true and meaningful but upon unpacking it barely says anything, if anything, at all. "Love is just a word" being a commonly cited example of a "Deepity".

sombaht wrote: »

The enlightened being ceases to create karma and thus is liberated from rebirth.

Something does not gel with me here and seems to be contradicting itself.

First you defined Karma as "intentional acts" then you noted that EVERYONE "is affected by our intentional acts". Ok with you so far. So performing any intentional act is what you are defining as "Karma".

But then you say you can cease to create Karma which by your own definition means cease to perform any intentional act. Explain to me how one performs ANY act without intention, let alone reach a point where ALL of them are without intention? Even non action at times requires intent.

Such a definition of "enlightenment" appears to therefore be defined in such a way as to be something that can never be attained. Ever. "Enlightenment" in the context of your definitions around "intentional acts" for me would simply be reaching a state where one is as acutely aware as possible of what the effects of those acts are likely to be.

But perhaps this is exactly what I meant by the conclusions one can tend towards when operating around a word that is so general as to almost mean nothing much at all.

BizzyC

sombaht wrote: »

Buddhists do not think of karma as "destiny" or as some kind of cosmic retribution system. Although the fruits of "good" karma might be pleasant and beneficial, all karma keeps one entangled in the cycle of death and rebirth.

Tell that to the Buddhists in Thailand I was discussing Karma with last week then.

From what they were saying, they do see bad things that happen in their lives as consequence of their own actions, either from this life or a previous life.
The old woman I was talking to actually used those same examples I gave.

So if there's nothing supernatural, then what exactly is the force that not only keep track of actions in your previous life, but will also impact your current life as a result?

nozzferrahhtoo

BizzyC wrote: »

Tell that to the Buddhists in Thailand I was discussing Karma with last week then.

From what they were saying, they do see bad things that happen in their lives as consequence of their own actions, either from this life or a previous life.
The old woman I was talking to actually used those same examples I gave.

So if there's nothing supernatural, then what exactly is the force that not only keep track of actions in your previous life, but will also impact your current life as a result?

Weren't talking to any Z list celebrities were you?

Three Seasons

BizzyC wrote: »

Tell that to the Buddhists in Thailand I was discussing Karma with last week then.

From what they were saying, they do see bad things that happen in their lives as consequence of their own actions, either from this life or a previous life.
The old woman I was talking to actually used those same examples I gave.

So if there's nothing supernatural, then what exactly is the force that not only keep track of actions in your previous life, but will also impact your current life as a result?

They've misinterpreted the Buddha's words IMO.

Kinski

Three Seasons wrote: »

The Buddha believed we are all the same life force inside IMO hence when we die we are still alive in other people. This IMO has been misinterpreted.
...
Nothing supernatural about it whatsoever.

As I understand it, these sorts of "modernist" interpretations of Buddhism are part of a process that has occurred over the past 100 years or so, which saw the growth of interest in Eastern religion in the West, but which involved radically-reinterpreting the various strands of Buddhist thought, and the Buddha's teaching, so they were rendered more palatable to Western minds orientated around science and reason.

Let's face it: belief in the cycle of literal death and rebirth has been central to Buddhism for two and a half thousand years. Moderns may decide to reimagine it so it better fits with their world, beliefs and experiences, and that's fine, but claiming that the Buddha himself didn't propagate supernatural ideas, that his worldview, formed way back 500 years before Christ, can sit comfortably within the Western materialist imagination is just fanciful.

Three Seasons

Kinski wrote: »

As I understand it, these sorts of "modernist" interpretations of Buddhism are part of a process that has occurred over the past 100 years or so, which saw the growth of interest in Eastern religion in the West, but which involved radically-reinterpreting the various strands of Buddhist thought, and the Buddha's teaching, so they were rendered more palatable to Western minds orientated around science and reason.

Let's face it: belief in the cycle of literal death and rebirth has been central to Buddhism for two and a half thousand years. Moderns may decide to reimagine it so it better fits with their world, beliefs and experiences, and that's fine, but claiming that the Buddha himself didn't propagate supernatural ideas, that his worldview, formed way back 500 years before Christ, can sit comfortably within the Western materialist imagination is just fanciful.

Why fanciful? Could it not be fanciful to suggest that a person's teachings thousands of years ago couldn't have been distorted over time to seem more supernatural?

Kinski

Three Seasons wrote: »

Why fanciful? Could it not be fanciful to suggest that a person's teachings thousands of years ago couldn't have been distorted over time to seem more supernatural?

His teachings have certainly been subject to numerous competing interpretations over thousands of years, but to say that they've been "distorted" is to suggest you possess the accurate interpretation, and all these other peoples and schools have it wrong.

What's striking about your version (as in the version you subscribe to) is that it elides anything supernatural, thus making the Buddha's teachings perfectly consistent with modern Western science, which, it must be said, is very convenient for any advocates or followers of Buddhism living in the West in the 21st century.

Put it like this: which seems more likely, that a famous spiritual teacher who lived 2,500 years ago held no supernatural beliefs, and such beliefs have merely been tacked on retrospectively - rendering the understanding(s) of the Buddha's teaching common throughout Asia for millenia just plain wrong - or that he did hold supernatural beliefs and modern proponents of Buddhism in the West have simply reworked his ideas?

Wibbs

sup_dude wrote: »

Do you not feel that, as the Dalai Lama is traveling and working with scientists...

Don't get me started on that joker*, but so what? Some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs came from the minds of dyed in the wool religious types. Newton a good example, who wrote as much about theology as he did on maths and physics. He namechecked a few Jesuits as being highly influential on his work(given he was a Protestant that's significant of itself). Early research on hereditary mechanisms and genes was done by a catholic monk(and the church funded his lab). The annals of paleoanthropology, biology, zoology etc are littered with religious titles. The Dalai lama wouldn't be within sniffing distance of those lads on the science front and they were very definitely religious.


*He's a darling of the liberal west and the same liberal west who would generally be very much against theocratic societies are gung ho for him who wants to rebuild one. Check out Tibet and it's priest ridden society back in the day.

sombaht

Three Seasons wrote: »

They've misinterpreted the Buddha's words IMO.

This isn't too far from the truth actually. Theravada Buddhism, as practised in Thailand is quite different from the original teachings of the Buddha and incorporates a lot of shamanism and animistic beliefs. It needed to do so in order to gain acceptance amongst the locals at the time. Not too different from Christianity arriving in Ireland and incorporating pagan rituals etc.

Cheers,
sombaht

sombaht

BizzyC wrote: »

Tell that to the Buddhists in Thailand I was discussing Karma with last week then.

Well as mentioned elsewhere, it is likely that they have misinterpreted the Buddhas teachings.

BizzyC wrote: »

From what they were saying, they do see bad things that happen in their lives as consequence of their own actions,

Yes, that's not destiny however. Just as action causes reaction, karma causes effects that come back to the original actor. Karma also tends to generate more karma.

Cheers,
sombaht

StewartGriffin

Kinski wrote: »

As I understand it, these sorts of "modernist" interpretations of Buddhism are part of a process that has occurred over the past 100 years or so, which saw the growth of interest in Eastern religion in the West, but which involved radically-reinterpreting the various strands of Buddhist thought, and the Buddha's teaching, so they were rendered more palatable to Western minds orientated around science and reason.

Let's face it: belief in the cycle of literal death and rebirth has been central to Buddhism for two and a half thousand years. Moderns may decide to reimagine it so it better fits with their world, beliefs and experiences, and that's fine, but claiming that the Buddha himself didn't propagate supernatural ideas, that his worldview, formed way back 500 years before Christ, can sit comfortably within the Western materialist imagination is just fanciful.

The original Buddha was indeed raised, and fully immersed, in the Hindu faith. There is a definite "background radiation" of this in his teachings.

Paddycrumlinman

Paddycrumlinman wrote: »

I’m forever grateful that I found Buddhism and look forward to new Dharma talks as they come along.

Oooo I see what you did there. That was a Buddhism joke wasn't it? You live in the moment so the whole point is you are not meant to be "looking forward" to anything

Or maybe you missed the point and the "truly enlightened" followers are the ones who stop looking forward to the next video and realize they are already there?