Questions on Buddhism - answered by a Buddhist!

[Trumble]

OK, since everybody else non-muslim seems to have had a go perhaps it's time I did. Especially after seeing the Harun Yahya movie on Buddhism.

I'll kick off with the very basics, then throw it open to anything. The only thing I would say is Buddhism can be found in many varieties and in many cultural settings, and I know very little about many of them. If somebody asked, for example, why a certain ritual is performed at a certain monastery somewhere in Tibet the answer is likely to be "I haven't got a clue"!

The Basics (with a little commentary)

The Buddha taught that there are four fundamental truths, which came to be known as the 'Four Noble Truths'.

They are;

Life means suffering

'Suffering', the usual translation, is a little strong but in this context the only real alternative, 'dissatisfaction' (which I actually prefer) is maybe a little weak. The actual word in Pali is dukkha which is increasingly used directly. What is meant is not 'suffering' in the sense of permanent pain and misery (although in many cases that can be the result) but a sense of dissatifaction about things not being the way you want them to be. If you think about it, they very rarely are, the vast majority of people have constant useless thoughts about wanting that car, not this one, their house not my house, his bank balance not mine, and so on.


The cause of suffering is attachment

Following on from above the cause of that suffering is desirous attachment. All of it comes from wanting things we don't have, and from being mentally attached to the idea of having those things. Right through life we are unceasingly dragged around by such attachments from one unsatisfactory state of life to the next.

Again, a little example. Imagine (which shouldn't stretch many of you too far!) that you hate your job. You want another, different, job, you really want it. But no matter how hard you try to improve your skills, improve your qualifications, or just fail to get lucky, that job eludes you. Wouldn't you be happier if you didn't want it? I'll point out here that, contrary to the Harun Yahya interpretation. that doesn't mean you have to throw away any chance of getting that new job, or just sit back in apathy instead of improving the quality of life of yourself and your family. The important thing is not to do nothing, but simply not to get hung up on it if things don't go the way you want, and accept both that things are the way they are and that they are continuously changing whether you like it or not.


The cessation of suffering is attainable

Simply that this suffering can be ended, and the cycle broken.


and, the path to the cessation of suffering known as;

the Eightfold Path

The way to do it.


Right view

Essentially understanding the Four Noble Truths and cultivating the insightful wisdom that allows you to do so.


Right intention

Giving up selfish attitudes that lead to desire and replacing them with their opposites, such as cultivating the intention to bring happiness to all.


Right speech

Simply speaking words that are purposeful, beneficial to others and, of course, truthful.


Right action

Avoiding causing harm to others. This covers a wide range of 'don'ts' including killing, theft, improper sexual conduct and so-forth while also including the 'do's' such as helping and protecting those who need it.


Right livelihood

Earning a living in a way which does not contradict any of the above. Avoid occupations which involve physical violence, harm and deception, keeping business dealings honest and where possible of service to others.

Another quick point on the Harun Yahya interpretation, this step on the Path clearly shows that it is not necessary to be a monk to practice Buddhism! As with all other religions with a monastic tradition the vast majority of Buddhists are not, and that was true even in the Buddha's time.


Right effort

Effort in spiritual practice, don't be lazy.


Right mindfulness

Paying close attention to what is happening right now, not clinging to the past or fantasizing about the future. Right now is all that there is.


Right concentration

Practice of meditation in order to develop deep insight into the nature of reality, and the method needed to stop suffering.


One more thing for now, the different types of Buddhism. There ARE different types because Buddhism is not based on any divine revelation, it is the teaching of men. Although the Buddha was the first and by far the most important teacher, there have been others who have added to and interpreted the original teachings in the light of their own insights. No sort of Buddhism is any more 'pure' than any other, although some may be closer to the 'original' teaching. Like everything in Buddhism there is no dictate, its just a case of 'suck it and see' and many Western Buddhists chose the path that makes the most sense to them.

Theravada Buddhism

The nearest, probably, to what the Buddha originally taught, based on what is known as the Pali Canon or Tipitaka. This is a large collection of literature containing the sutras or discourses attributed the Buddha, the rules of conduct for the Buddhist monastic community, and assorted commentary on the sutras. This is the type of Buddhism predominant in Thailand, Burma and Sri Lanka.

Mahayana Buddhism

Effectively, everything but the above (with one exception, I'll come to later). Various teachings that evolved sometime after the Pali Canon was set down on paper that include everything from 'Pure Land' Buddhism to Zen. There are some important core Mahayana beliefs, such as the idea of the Bodhisattva (an enlightened being who vows to delay their own final entry to Nirvana in order to help all sentient beings) are known to all Buddhists, as are the most significant Mahayana sutras. Various forms of the Mahayana are practiced in China, Vietnam, Korea and Japan.

Vajrayāna Buddhism

Essentially (but a little simplistically) Buddhism influenced by the Indian Tantric traditions. Found mainly in Tibet and Nepal, although it is perhaps also the most popular type in the West these days.

OK, any questions on that lot or anything else? :happy:



Oh, one final thing. My own, personal (and constantly evolving), belief network incorporates both a significant Daoist element and even a few things best described as 'New Age'. I'll do my utmost to keep those out of any discussions to avoid total confusion, but if anyone should pick me up doing otherwise please feel free to give me a virtual slap on the wrist.

[Les_Nubian]

As an ex-Buddhist, I can tell you, this is great. I'm just glad you've found your way, whatever that may be. As long as it's peaceful and logical for you. Great. :)

[chris4336]

Okay this might be the dumbest question ever but do you believe in God?

[Trumble]

Okay this might be the dumbest question ever but do you believe in God?

LOL... I've hit dodgy ground already! ;D I'll have to split this in two, Buddhists in general and me personally.

I don't, or at least in the sense that Jews, muslims and Christians believe in God. I don't think there is an independently intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent Creator. I do believe that there is a fundamental unity of some description, for which 'God' is as good a name as anything, from which we and everything are born, and to which we return. Tao is the word that sums it up best (although I have a few personal bolt-ons), but I'll let people look that up for themselves to avoid getting distracted.

Buddhists, generally, do not believe in the Islamic conception of God - one that is independent of the universe and created it. There are some who believe being a monotheist and a Buddhist are not incompatible, but that is not a belief I share as I think some of the core beliefs are mutually contradictory. It's accurate to say, perhaps, that some Buddhist practices (such as meditation) are not incompatible with monotheism.

You will come across many 'gods' in Buddhist literature and practice, particularly in the later forms, and according to local traditions, many of which are influenced by other beliefs such as Hinduism or Shinto. It is important to get these in context. Most are symbolic, in some form or other, of particular aspects of reality or spiritual practice and progress. To the extent that they are considered 'real' entities they are best considered as 'spirit beings' of some sort, non-human intelligent sentients who (generally) are rather higher up the spiritual ladder. The essential point, though, is that such 'gods', are subject to exactly the same processes of cause and effect (birth, decay, death, rebirth) as everything else in the universe, including us. Albeit over rather different time-scales!

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Pygoscelis]

2 questions.

1. The Dahlai Llama. Is he Budhist? I'm almost certain he is but I forget. If so, is he some kind of high clergy? And if not, why is he famous?

2. Buddhism, the way you have described it, sounds more like philosophy than religion. Can a buddhist be completely materalist without any belief in gods or any other supernatural force in the universe? I haven't seen a contradiction to that in your posting so far.

[جوري]

1-Do you attend those butter festivals to celebrate Buddha? what other festivals do you have and what do they celebrate?
2-Would you be considered a devout practicing Buddhist by other Buddhists?
3-Does Buddhism evolve with the times? The new chic........ made even more so by Richard Gere?
4- has Buddhism lost its charm like Kabala with all those celebrities....
5- Do you think the Dali Lama enjoys his status just a tad too much as opposed to previous dali lamas?
6- what happens after current dali lama expires? who will take his place?
7- What happens to you after you die? how are your dead buried?
8- can you eat anything you want or are there dietary restrictions?

[Trumble]

1. The Dahlai Llama. Is he Budhist? I'm almost certain he is but I forget. If so, is he some kind of high clergy? And if not, why is he famous?

The Dalai Lama is a Buddhist, yes. He is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists both in Tibet and around the world. He currently lives in exile in India, and has done since the Chinese invasion of Tibet. More on him in my reply to PurestAmbrosia below.

2. Buddhism, the way you have described it, sounds more like philosophy than religion. Can a buddhist be completely materalist without any belief in gods or any other supernatural force in the universe? I haven't seen a contradiction to that in your posting so far.

It is certainly as much philosophy as religion, although despite claims to the contrary it IS a religion (unless religion is incorrectly defined as requiring God or Gods). As to completely materialist, probably not. Although there are some striking parallels with modern physics (I'll say a little more on that later) there is still a large faith element, and many fundamental Buddhist beliefs in the way the universe works cannot be proved or demonstrated scientifically, and are unlikely ever to be. There is no requirement for God or gods though, nor anything 'supernatural', although some 'gods' do crop up in some traditions as I explained earlier.

1-Do you attend those butter festivals to celebrate Buddha? what other festivals do you have and what do they celebrate?

No, I don't. I don't think many Westerners do unless they are attached to a particular monastery, or something similar, which I am not. The only time I have is when I happened to be on a retreat at a Zen monastery at the time. There are many assorted festivals, some of which are particular to certain countries, and all of which are celebrated in duifferent ways in different places. There's a list HERE

2-Would you be considered a devout practicing Buddhist by other Buddhists?

There's 'devout' and 'devout'! I have a family and 'normal' job, but I guess probably yes, certainly in the West. I spend a fair amount of time in direct meditation practice, but none in any sort of devotional practice except a few preliminaries at assorted Buddhist meditation groups.

3-Does Buddhism evolve with the times? The new chic........ made even more so by Richard Gere?

It certainly evolves with the times in many respects, although the core beliefs do not. I don't really think the 'new chic' is of much relevance.. there are plenty of celebs who have 'found' Christianity, Islam, Scientology, assorted types of Hinduism and as you say, Kabbalah. I think the '60s were of much more importance in that respect, when there was a big surge of interest in all the Eastern religions, much of which hung around and grew.

4- has Buddhism lost its charm like Kabala with all those celebrities....

No, I don't think so. I don't think many Buddhists take much notice, to be honest.

5- Do you think the Dali Lama enjoys his status just a tad too much as opposed to previous dali lamas?

No, because he is in a position his predecessors were not in. I think that his increased status isn't really dependent on his religious position and beliefs, but on his statesmanship and firm adherence to non-violence despite the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Add to that his popular writings and successful attempts to spread Buddhist knowledge and belief, and admittedly increased media exposure I think that status is well justified.

6- what happens after current dali lama expires? who will take his place?

Theory, or practice? Traditionally, the monks would scour the land to identify his re-incarnated successor, but it's more than likely he will be whisked off to be brainwashed into a Chinese guided stooge.

7- What happens to you after you die? how are your dead buried?

According to local tradition. Buddhism has no specific requirements in that respect.

8- can you eat anything you want or are there dietary restrictions?

Nothing is enforced, but the great majority of lay Buddhists are vegetarian. In a monastery or similar the rules would enforce vegetarianism, and no popping out for steak and chips! There are a very few exceptions in and around the Himalayas where a vegetarian diet simply isn't practical as livestock herding is the only viable form of agriculture.

[chris4336]

This is very cool thanks for answering the questions...

Can you elaborate on the reincarnation a little?

Could you mabye tell us a little about Budda - do you believe he was devinly guided or just very enlightened or something else?

[Trumble]

Can you elaborate on the reincarnation a little?

Sure. It's a good topic and one that is frequently misunderstood, mainly due to confusion with the Hindu concept which is actually rather different although (in Sanskrit) it uses the same terminology, particularly karma, but the meaning is rather different. 'Reincarnation', actually isn't the right word applied to Buddhism, 'rebirth' is better. Be warned, though, there really isn't an easy explanation of this, and any attempt to do so usually completely distorts the concepts involved.

To look at rebirth you first need to look at what Buddhists consider people actually consist of, which is a physical, material body (obviously) and various aspects of sensory perception and mental activity; they are called the 'five skandhas', but I won't get too technical. All of them, though, are constantly changing and at any one point in time it is them, and them alone, that make up us. We are therefore constantly changing and quite literally are a different person one moment to the next, although the differences may appear only slight. It is essential to realise that there is no enduring 'soul', or ego-personality in Buddhism. That's why reincarnation is inaccurate; according to the literal meaning of that word ("to be made flesh again") there is nothing to be reincarnated.

While alive, each new, slightly different 'personality' is determined by the previous one, and various outside factors, in a continuous stream of cause and effect. After death, the process simply continues, but the effect this time is a rebirth, a new life different from the old one but conditioned by it. Again, I will repeat it is not a 'soul' being reborn. There is no enduring entity apart from that ever-changing stream of conciousness.

What can you be reborn as? Well, pretty much anything, and that's where all the stuff about being reborn as animals and such comes from. Exactly what (the effect) is determined by the nature of the previous consciousness stream (the cause), and the more highly developed spiritually it is the "further up the ladder" the rebirth will be. But it is not a 'personality' or soul that is reborn. 'I' will not be reborn as a fly, or a human, or a spirit being because there is no 'I' left. A human rebirth is considered desirable because that offers the best chance of spiritual progress and eventual escape from the cycle of rebirth.. but that is the spiritual progress of the new being, not the old one, who no longer exists except as a causal 'memory'.

Could you mabye tell us a little about Budda - do you believe he was devinly guided or just very enlightened or something else?

I won't go through his life story as that's something that's very easy to just Google up. I'd recommend http://www.buddhanet.net as a good source of information, and a place to start enquiries.

Do I believe he was divinely guided? No, because I don't believe there was any divinity to guide him. An essential point about Buddhism is that it is a religion of self-effort. Nobody, or nothing, else will do the work for you through prayer or otherwise in achieving enlightenment or reaching Nirvana (the equivalent of heaven or Paradise if you like, although its not a close analogy). Teachers such as the Buddha help, but they can only guide you, not provide instant answers. The Buddha was 'ripe' for Enlightenment, but only as a result of many previous lifetimes of strenuous effort on his part.

[Trumble]

Can a buddhist be completely materalist without any belief in gods or any other supernatural force in the universe?

Just a little more on that. It's pretty well known, I think, that there are some pretty remarkable parallels between quantum physics and cosmology, and Buddhism. Not to mention psychology and Buddhism. I won't list any as they are easy enough to read up on (there's a brief book list at the end of the post, and plenty on the 'net), and to be honest I struggle just to understand a lot of the physics when I read it and simply don't feel qualified to try and reproduce it, let alone answer questions. Many physicists are 'attracted' to Buddhism by reason of those parallels, although that certainly doesn't mean they all rush off to become Buddhists!

In view of recent discussions regarding the Qur'an, though, it's a good idea to get such parallels in context. There are two overall themes. The first is that many ideas of modern physics fit seemlessly into a Buddhist cosmology; it accomodates them easily. Second, that several essential Buddhist doctrines can be directly equated to ideas in physics, ranging from generally accepted theories to some of the wilder cosmological hypotheses and speculation. From the Buddhist, rather than the physics, angle the doctrines and the direct experience involved with them can be seen as the direct experience or visualization of the scientific ideas as reality rather than just as mathematical concepts.

What such discussions are not, though, is any claim that the Buddha was aware of modern quantum and cosmological ideas long before their time. He was not. What he may have had is insights into those ideas via his own direct experience, being able to percieve in real terms what the physicists' math says happens. They might just be the same ideas approached from a different direction.

Reading List

The Tao of Physics - Fritjof Capra

The Quantum and the Lotus - Matthieu Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan

Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground - B. Alan Wallace (ed.)

[AvarAllahNoor]

Great - I respect all religions, but find the concept of 'No God' difficult to grasp in Buddhism.

Also you say you have many Gods like the hindus, this is due to the influence of hindusim, they try to absorb all religions. Including Sikhism, which they've failed and and have resorted to try to eradicate it instead. But that's another story.

[snakelegs]

buddhism flatly rejected the caste system - true?
were they violently persecuted by the hindus in the early days? if so, was it simply because of their position on the caste system?
what does the zen (i think?) saying "if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him" mean to you?
thanks very much for this thread.

[north_malaysian]

Do Buddhists worship Gauthama Buddha as 'God'?

[Trumble]

buddhism flatly rejected the caste system - true?

The Buddha was a severe critic of it, certainly. 'Buddhism', though, cannot always be seperated from 'Buddhists', and much the same is true of every religion. Cultural factors can be very ingrained, sometimes, and while Buddhism itself does 'reject' it that doesn't mean some Buddhists didn't practice it, historically if not today. You will probably be aware that there are many converts today, both to Buddhism and to Islam, principally because the people concerned wish to totally reject that system.

were they violently persecuted by the hindus in the early days? if so, was it simply because of their position on the caste system?

I don't know, is the simple answer, as I'm not familiar enough with the history. This is what Wikipedia has to say, though;

While the exact cause of the decline of Buddhism in India is disputed, it is known that the mingling of Hindu and Buddhist societies in India and the rise of Hindu Vedanta movements began to compete against Buddhism. Many believe that Hinduism's adaptation to Buddhism resulted in Buddhism's rapid decline while others point to the aggressive attitudes adopted by various Hindu kings. Particularly important were Hinduism's revival movements such as the adoption of the Buddha into the Hindu pantheon, Advaita Vedanta and the Bhakti movement, both of which showed the influence of Buddhist thought. Buddhism's influence on Bhakti movement in particular emphasized more Buddhist concepts of spiritual merit rather than caste as well as the Mahayana Buddhist concepts of love and self sacrifice. Mahayana Buddhist schools at the common level was far more devotional. Some scholars believe that the influence of Bhakti was synergistic with oppressive caste and social situations, in that Bhakti made conversion to Hinduism a more comfortable alternative for oppressed Buddhists.

When Islam arrived in India, it sought conversion from, not assimilation to or integration with, the already present religions. The new Muslim rulers left in place the Brahmin-controlled caste system that reinforced Hindu social norms [6]. Under Sufi influence, the pressures of caste and with no political support structure left in place to resist social mores many converted to Islam in the Bengal region. However, the destruction of many monasteries and stupas resulted in the Buddhist order being almost entirely eradicated, because most of the tradition was kept up by monks, not lay-people.

what does the zen (i think?) saying "if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him" mean to you?

Yes, it's from the Chinese Zen master Linji. It actually has multiple layers of meaning, none of which, of course suggest that if you literally bumped into Siddhartha Guatama you should stick a knife in him! The Buddha was long dead by Linji's time!

The main point of the saying is that the idea of the Buddha and Buddhism are attachments as well, and just as unreal in the sense of having an independent existence as everything else in the cosmos. As the ultimate aim of Buddhist practice is to discard all attachment, sooner or later those must go to. The concepts of 'Buddha', 'Buddhism' and the Buddhist teachings are sort of spiritual crutches.. you need them at first but, as when your broken leg is healed, they can be thrown away when no longer required - indeed you must throw them away to walk properly. 'Meeting the Buddha' is the point at which you no longer need him. It is not the end of the journey, but a barrier that must be pushed aside as you press on. Needless to say, this represents a very advanced state of spiritual practice!

[Trumble]

Do Buddhists worship Gauthama Buddha as 'God'?

No. Although certain devotional ritual can give that impression, and frequently did to the first Westerners to encounter Buddhism. Buddhist 'worship' is simply a show of respect, not offering praise and offerings in return for favours, or 'prayer' in the Christian sense, for example.

All Buddhists accept that Gautama was man, not God. He was only different because of his advanced state of spiritual development, but all men and women have the potential to become Buddhas.

[snakelegs]

Yes, it's from the Chinese Zen master Linji. It actually has multiple layers of meaning, none of which, of course suggest that if you literally bumped into Siddhartha Guatama you should stick a knife in him! The Buddha was long dead by Linji's time!

The main point of the saying is that the idea of the Buddha and Buddhism are attachments as well, and just as unreal in the sense of having an independent existence as everything else in the cosmos. As the ultimate aim of Buddhist practice is to discard all attachment, sooner or later those must go to. The concepts of 'Buddha', 'Buddhism' and the Buddhist teachings are sort of spiritual crutches.. you need them at first but, as when your broken leg is healed, they can be thrown away when no longer required - indeed you must throw them away to walk properly. 'Meeting the Buddha' is the point at which you no longer need him. It is not the end of the journey, but a barrier that must be pushed aside as you press on. Needless to say, this represents a very advanced state of spiritual practice!

thanks. this was pretty much the way i understood it. do you think it could also be interpreted that if you meet god and it is outside of you, it is an illusion - or is that reading something in to it that is not there? there is also some story about when you cross a river in a boat - you leave the boat behind when you reach the other side - not carry it with you. that seems similar in intent.
do various buddhist sects live in harmony with each other or are there antagonisms between them?
i have the impression that karma is often used to "blame the victim" (he deserves it because of his former lives). also, that it encourages people to accept oppression and social injustice rather than fight it. what are your thoughts on this?
thanks!

[Trumble]

this was pretty much the way i understood it. do you think it could also be interpreted that if you meet god and it is outside of you, it is an illusion - or is that reading something in to it that is not there?

That's reasonable. The real 'Buddha', as far as there is one, would lie within.

there is also some story about when you cross a river in a boat - you leave the boat behind when you reach the other side - not carry it with you. that seems similar in intent.

Yes, exactly the same point.

do various buddhist sects live in harmony with each other or are there antagonisms between them?

There certainly have been antagonisms and rivalrys. Not to much due to doctrinal differences but, as with all religions, Buddhists have not been immune to becoming involved in politics both religious and more wordly. It's not an area I know much about, but I certainly trouble at times particularly between some of the Tibetan sects.

i have the impression that karma is often used to "blame the victim" (he deserves it because of his former lives).

That's more a Hindu idea than a Buddhist one, although I suppose it is true to an extent. Buddhists would agree that what happened in previous lives conditions the circumstances of the present one but nobody would be 'blamed' as such as Buddhists don't believe their are independent and enduring entities, 'souls', to blame. If the 'victim' concerned required assistance it would be given with no thought of such things.

.... also, that it encourages people to accept oppression and social injustice rather than fight it. what are your thoughts on this?

Tricky one, but that is probably true. Buddhism is, by nature, pacifistic. Theoretically oppression and social injustice would also be 'accepted' in the sense that, like everything else, they have no real existence anyway outside of the constructs of our own minds. In practice, though, Buddhists are people not (yet) Buddhas and there are other ways of 'fighting' than using swords and guns. 'Passive resistance', as shown by Gandhi.. and the Buddhist monks who burned themselves to death in Vietnam, can often be more effective, anyway.

[*!~Faith~!*]

In my world religions class we are to answer this question. Was Buddha an enviormentalist?

[snakelegs]

thanks for your reply, trumble

[Trumble]

In my world religions class we are to answer this question. Was Buddha an enviormentalist?

Was Buddha? In his time nobody was a enviromentalist, yet in way everybody was. The technology today that leads to pollution was in the far future, and the human population was sufficiently small it didn't threaten the habitats of animals or chop down too many trees. I think that's pretty much true of other religious figures like Mohammed and Jesus, too, environmentalism just wasn't an issue.

I guess what the question is getting at is that the Buddha had both infinite compassion for all living things, and respected all forms of life. His philosophy would not have involved exploiting animals (he was a vegetarian, of course) and the environment in any way beyond that necessary for survival, and he would not have thought of the world around him as consisting of resources which people had some right to use ahead of other creatures.

Many present day Buddhists are also environmentalists, certainly.

[*!~Faith~!*]

Thanks trumble for clarifying. It was an essay question I was stuck on :)

[north_malaysian]

Why Chinese Buddhists in my country regard Goddess Kwan Yin (or Guan Yin) as Buddha (or Bodhisatva...)? Can a Goddess or God be Buddha too?

[Pygoscelis]

Thanks trumble for clarifying. It was an essay question I was stuck on :)

Faith, you've got just about the cutest avatar I've ever seen!

:happy:

[Malaikah]

Cool thread! I've got two Buddhist friends and I knew absolutely nothing about their 'faith', until now.

So, my question:

If Buddhists do not believe in God, how can they claim that things such as reincarnation occur when this is itself outside the realm of human understanding? How do you know this? If Buddha said so, how did he know, since he was only a human with out divine knowledge? :uuh: :mmokay:

p.s. They both eat meat ^o) and for one of them only males are allowed to drink alcohol, and the other one, well she said she doesnt like alcohol, she didnt mention anything about her 'religion' (if you can call it a religion since there is no God).

[Abdul Fattah]

I don't, or at least in the sense that Jews, muslims and Christians believe in God. I don't think there is an independently intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent Creator. I do believe that there is a fundamental unity of some description, for which 'God' is as good a name as anything, from which we and everything are born, and to which we return. Tao is the word that sums it up best (although I have a few personal bolt-ons), but I'll let people look that up for themselves to avoid getting distracted.

If you don't mind I would like to discuss this a lil' bit further, I know it's off-topic; but I'm hoping you'll indulge me. So the questions I have.
1. Do you believe this divine entity or energy is the source of all creation, the beginning?
2a. If yes to question 1; given that the universe would be made up out of this source and maintained by this source wouldn't that make this source omnipresent and omniscient?
2b. If yes to question 1; given the complexity of the universe, wouldn't that make this source an intelligent one?
2c. If no to question 1; what do you consider the source of all?
3. You said you don't see it as independently nor omnipotent so to what kind of forces/authority does/could it depend on? What could it be inferior to?
4. Why do you consider this entity not to be benevolent?

Buddhists, generally, do not believe in the Islamic conception of God - one that is independent of the universe and created it. There are some who believe being a monotheist and a Buddhist are not incompatible, but that is not a belief I share as I think some of the core beliefs are mutually contradictory. It's accurate to say, perhaps, that some Buddhist practices (such as meditation) are not incompatible with monotheism.

5. On what grounds do you feel those two are incompatible?
And finally if you alow me, I would like to expand a bit on our God-view.
First of all contrary to some other monotheistic religions, we believe God to be nothing like anything we know or anything we can Imagen. By imagining something or by attributing a certain characteristic to God we do God injustice. The only thing we do know are the names by which this entity goes by, as they were revealed in the qur'an, and these names do reveal us some characteristics they are the following:
http://www.jannah.org/articles/names.html

6. So my last question, do you think it is at all possible to come from believing in the divine entity you do now to come to believe in the divine entity that we believe, or are their certain bridges that seem uncrossable?

[Trumble]

Why Chinese Buddhists in my country regard Goddess Kwan Yin (or Guan Yin) as Buddha (or Bodhisatva...)? Can a Goddess or God be Buddha too?

The boddhissatva of compassion, rather than a Buddha. In other places it's 'god' rather than 'goddess', too.

Again, it comes down to a mixture of terminology and cultural adaptation. I guess 'yes' is the answer to your question, as Kwan Yin is certainly worshipped as a goddess in some places, and there is no perceived incompatibility between that and boddhisavata-hood. I suspect monks and the general populace might view her rather differently, the former being rather more symbolicly. I don't really qualified to comment too much as I have little experience of the more devotional Buddhist schools. Again, Wikipedia seems to have a good article, and there doesn't seem much point in just regurgitating bits of it if there is nothing I can add.

[Trumble]

If Buddhists do not believe in God, how can they claim that things such as reincarnation occur when this is itself outside the realm of human understanding? How do you know this? If Buddha said so, how did he know, since he was only a human with out divine knowledge

The Buddha knew by direct experience of fundamental reality, the way things really are. It is that direct experience, that enlightenment, that defines a Buddha. No outside input is required, divine or otherwise. As I have said previously, Buddhism is a religion of self-effort.

The point is that such things are not beyond human understanding, but they are beyond human reasoning. It's not something you can just talk about or read about, you have to experience it to know, but when you do, you know. It's a bit like explaining colour to a man blind from birth. He could understand the physics, and maybe get some idea of what you are talking about, but he could never know what seeing a colour is like in the way you do.

Now, such enlightenment is only at the end of the road. Although Buddhists may gain insights to varying degrees through meditational practice, few, if any approach the state the Buddha did in his final lifetime. So, why do Buddhists believe in the Buddhas teachings when they lack that direct experience?

Two reasons. The first is, simply, faith. Not necessarily a blind faith, though.. the Buddha always took pretty much a suck it and see approach to his teachings. Try it and see if it works, if not be happy in moving on. Most Buddhists after a little practice begin to gain, if not insights into eternity, a more serene, happier life.

The second is that Buddhist ideas have a substantial metaphysics and philosophy of their own that, in the areas they are concerned with, stand up very well against their Western equivalents. Many people, including me, find they provide very convincing explanations for the most fundamental questions although, like theism, whatever logical paths you follow there are always fundamental assumptions based to large degree on faith. I don't buy 'proofs' any more in Buddhism than I do regarding Islam, but that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

..if you can call it a religion since there is no God

I don't think religion has to be defined in terms of a God, although some simplistic definitions do. Buddhism is certainly as much philosophy as religion.

[Trumble]

If you don't mind I would like to discuss this a lil' bit further, I know it's off-topic; but I'm hoping you'll indulge me. So the questions I have.
1. Do you believe this divine entity or energy is the source of all creation, the beginning?
2a. If yes to question 1; given that the universe would be made up out of this source and maintained by this source wouldn't that make this source omnipresent and omniscient?
2b. If yes to question 1; given the complexity of the universe, wouldn't that make this source an intelligent one?
2c. If no to question 1; what do you consider the source of all?
3. You said you don't see it as independently nor omnipotent so to what kind of forces/authority does/could it depend on? What could it be inferior to?
4. Why do you consider this entity not to be benevolent?

Steve,

I notice you started with a quote of what I made clear were my own personal beliefs. I don't want to dodge the question, but I don't want to cause confusion either, so in answering I will stick as closely as a can to a traditional Buddhist angle on those questions. My own conceptions may be slightly different, but I'm not even sure I could explain precisely how in any comprehensible form even if I thought it was a good idea to try!

Note that I said "fundamental unity". That doesn't imply 'divine', 'entity' or 'energy' except perhaps in the absolute broadest of terms.

1. The first thing to get to grips with is the fundamental idea that Buddhist cosmology rejects the idea that "reality" has any material existence. Matter, time and space are not "real" in that they have no existence apart from our perception of them. That is true of all phenomena of any description, all are interdependent and nothing can be defined in isolation. That includes conciousness itself. All phenomena are the result of cause and effect, each is conditioned by what happened before; by the condition of that entirety of independent phenomena.. unity.

In those terms, the idea of a 'beginning' simply makes no sense. Nothing, even the apparent start of time and space, can happen without a cause, and so the idea of an absolute beginning makes no sense. There is no beginning, and no end. There is no 'creation', and everything is 'creation'; everything is conditioned by what came before and conditions what comes afterwards.

2a. 'No' was the answer, but 'everything' must be 'omnipresent' by definition. As to 'omniscient', in a sense, but there is nothing permanent to be omniscient in the sense I suspect you mean.

2c. "What came before" is the answer, but 'source' is misleading. It is an infinite sequence of cause and effect, every phenomena has a source or sources, and every phenomena has an effect, or effect. In principle the cause of a phenomena may be the condition of everything prior to its coming into being.

3. It is "reality", it is everything. It therefore makes no sense to talk of 'authority', 'inferiority' or any outside force being applied to it.

4. It is neither benevolent or malevolent. It is everything, and so it must manifest aspects of both. It has to, neither concept makes any sense except in relation to the other.

Buddhists, generally, do not believe in the Islamic conception of God - one that is independent of the universe and created it. There are some who believe being a monotheist and a Buddhist are not incompatible, but that is not a belief I share as I think some of the core beliefs are mutually contradictory. It's accurate to say, perhaps, that some Buddhist practices (such as meditation) are not incompatible with monotheism.

5. On what grounds do you feel those two are incompatible?

Buddhist cosmology does not actually exclude God or gods, but any such entity must be subject to the same laws of cause and effect as anything else. It is the concept of God as first cause, and as something existing outside everything else, that it cannot accommodate. Also, in philosophical terms, as there is no need for a Creator God, a first cause, it would be in flagrant breech of 'Occam's Razor' to introduce one. Buddhist philosophy also has some rather nice little logical arguments demonstrating that such a first cause could not exist, which are actually similar to some of the Western equivalents.

And finally if you alow me, I would like to expand a bit on our God-view.
First of all contrary to some other monotheistic religions, we believe God to be nothing like anything we know or anything we can Imagen. By imagining something or by attributing a certain characteristic to God we do God injustice.

Noted.

6. So my last question, do you think it is at all possible to come from believing in the divine entity you do now to come to believe in the divine entity that we believe, or are their certain bridges that seem uncrossable?

I think I have explained already the concepts are radically different, so I fear that particular bridge is uncrossable, yes. The 'divine entity' of mine (and I really don't think the phrase is appropriate) encompasses everything; there cannot therefore be anything outside it to either create it or influence it. It includes conciousness, indeed consciousness is fundamental to it, but that conciousness has always been there, will always be there, and is the same conciousness that is manifested in very small part in ourselves.

[Abdul Fattah]

Yes, I realise this was your personal view and not necesairly the classical Bhudistic doctrine. So thanks for indulging me on my questions.
I get what you are saying but when talking about such believes it is extremely difficult to use the appropriate words. I am a bit familiar with the theory you are trying to explain and when I use words like devine entity or energy I do so only in lack of better word. What I meant was the transcending power you believe in. But I bet those words to will not be accurate :)

Anyway Let's try not to fix to much on words like reality matter and so on since that really doesn't bring us any further. You might be interested in knowing that sufism teaches a simular aproach to matter and reality. I'm more pragmatic when it comes to the matter of matter. What counts for me is that matter is real to me (I expieriance), and for me that is enough to define it as "real". Whether the method trough which I experience "reality" is close to how I (or science) imagen it to be or not; I consider irrelevant.
What I am really curious about is your believe that everything is causal and there cannot be a beginning of existence. Am I correct when I assume that this means you believe that time stretches back infinitely in history? This is something I cannot logically grasp. Maybe it is because the way I look at time, I can understand time being infinite in the future, but I can't understand how you see time as infinite in the past yet believe in complete causality at the same time. Here is my dilemma:

If time stretches back infinitely that means that the ever going causal process would take "forever" to reach "now".
In other words, if the present has infinite time that needs to pass before it, then that means this present will and can never occur.

Another thing that strikes me as odd is your firm believe in the unbreakable law of causality. Because to me causality is very relative. We do not even know why an apple falls to the earth. Yeah sure we say it's cause and effect. But why? Newton examined the process and found that all body's with mass seem to attract each other in a certain ratio. But he didn't know why. Einstein examined the phenomena and found that body's with mass create geodesic paths which other body's with mass seem to follow due to cause and effect. According to certain theories there is a messenger-particle called the graviton which causes objects with mass to be attracted to one another. These are all attempts trying to explain how the phenomena works, but none tell us why. And what I 'm trying to say here is: we don't know why.

Imagen a 2 dimensional piece of paper which has little flat inhabitants. Now Imagen someone pierces holes with an ice-pick in that paper periodically in a certain pattern. The inhabitants suddenly notice the holes and start examining it. They figure out the pattern and the period in which they occur and call it "the law of the holes". Now imagine two of those inhabitants discussing. And one of them saying, sure the existence of a giant 3d ice-pick is possible, just as long as it doesn't break the causal law of the holes. Because nothing can break causality. I hope you're getting my point. We are seeing the same actions always triggering the same reactions that we are starting to think that this is simply natural. We stop to think what lies behind it and assume that it is just a characteristic of the universe to respond in certain ways. We take causality for granted. To claim that nothing can break causality we first need to understand what causality is and why it manifests in the way it does. And so far science has offered us nothing to work with. So what do you think is behind causality? Why do certain actions have certain reactions? Could there be something that governs this?

By the way, thanks for taking the time to explain all of this, I'm really enjoying this discussion.

[Malaikah]

The Buddha knew by direct experience of fundamental reality, the way things really are. It is that direct experience, that enlightenment, that defines a Buddha.

I dont get it. What kind of experience was it exaclty? Did he die and come back to life and was able to tell the others that he was reincarnated?

:)

[snakelegs]

is there a tradition of charity that would be comparable with that of The Big 3? i'm wondering because of the concept of karma.
btw, i am really enjoying reading your replies on this thread.

[Trumble]

Yes, I realise this was your personal view and not necesairly the classical Bhudistic doctrine. So thanks for indulging me on my questions.

Actually, what I wrote is pretty much the classical Buddhist position.

I get what you are saying but when talking about such believes it is extremely difficult to use the appropriate words.

Yes, although really there are no appropriate words. As with the muslim appreciation of God, the best you can do with language is approximations.

What counts for me is that matter is real to me (I expieriance), and for me that is enough to define it as "real". Whether the method trough which I experience "reality" is close to how I (or science) imagen it to be or not; I consider irrelevant.

Fair enough, although a Buddhist could never consider it that way. It is forever being trapped in an illusion about how things really are, and trapped in the cycle of rebirth and suffering.

What I am really curious about is your believe that everything is causal and there cannot be a beginning of existence. Am I correct when I assume that this means you believe that time stretches back infinitely in history? This is something I cannot logically grasp. Maybe it is because the way I look at time, I can understand time being infinite in the future, but I can't understand how you see time as infinite in the past yet believe in complete causality at the same time. Here is my dilemma:

If time stretches back infinitely that means that the ever going causal process would take "forever" to reach "now".
In other words, if the present has infinite time that needs to pass before it, then that means this present will and can never occur.

Like most things I'm talking about it's difficult to logically grasp, as it cannot be logically proved. It is not unique to Buddhism, though. The 'steady state' cosmological theory, although now effectively disproved, was happy enough to include that idea. From the Buddhist perspective time does not exist as distinct from our perception of it; our perception is always in the 'now'.

The alternative is just as paradoxical. Assume that there was in fact a prime cause, which might as well be 'God' as anything. Such a prime cause would have to be immutable, unchanging. By definition it has no cause other than itself, so there is no reason for it to change. Change of any sort must imply the intervention of a further cause beyond the first cause. But it is impossible for something immutable to create anything! If it does, it must change in doing so.. simply from being something that has the potential to create to something that has created! And what causes it to create, to change? There can't be anything if it is a prime cause. If there is it is no longer immutable or omnipotent (something has influenced it).

Another thing that strikes me as odd is your firm believe in the unbreakable law of causality. Because to me causality is very relative. We do not even know why an apple falls to the earth. Yeah sure we say it's cause and effect. But why? Newton examined the process and found that all body's with mass seem to attract each other in a certain ratio. But he didn't know why. Einstein examined the phenomena and found that body's with mass create geodesic paths which other body's with mass seem to follow due to cause and effect. According to certain theories there is a messenger-particle called the graviton which causes objects with mass to be attracted to one another. These are all attempts trying to explain how the phenomena works, but none tell us why. And what I 'm trying to say here is: we don't know why.

As I said, all phenomena are totally interdependent and have no independent existence apart from our perception of them, so causality could be understood to be relative in those terms. I don't think that the fact "we don't know why" is really relevant. Everybody assumes there is a cause, and keeps looking for it; that cause could be anything from graviton interaction to God. If you consider quantum theory it seems at first glance that causality is thrown out the window, with bits of matter popping up here, there and everywhere without an obvious cause. Indeed it has been speculated that even an entire new universe could just pop out of 'nowhere' in that fashion. The Buddhist take, though, would be that causality is undiminished. Every is cause, everything is effect. What determines even events like that is the immediately precending state of everything.

Imagen a 2 dimensional piece of paper which has little flat inhabitants. Now Imagen someone pierces holes with an ice-pick in that paper periodically in a certain pattern. The inhabitants suddenly notice the holes and start examining it. They figure out the pattern and the period in which they occur and call it "the law of the holes".

My first thought is that such 'Flatlanders' would have no way of interpreting the phenomena as 'holes'? Holes in what? If anything they would appear as barriers, a 'wall' in their universe?

Now imagine two of those inhabitants discussing. And one of them saying, sure the existence of a giant 3d ice-pick is possible, just as long as it doesn't break the causal law of the holes. Because nothing can break causality. I hope you're getting my point.

Not really, I'm sorry. Surely there would be no 'causal law of holes' until an explanation had been suggested for why they kept popping up? Our flatlanders would assume there was a cause, and would speculate as to what it might be. Many might think it was the action of some sort of god. Perhaps a few cosmologists might postulate the existence of a '3rd dimension', invisible to normal perception, and indeed of a giant ice-pick that makes the holes. In both cases, then you have a 'causal law of holes'. In both cases it is merely a mental construction, the holes phenomena have no inherent existence apart from their observers - the phenomena requires both. You will see similarilities between that and both quantum physics and relativity; in both cases the phenomena being explained cannot be explained without reference to the observer. They are interdependent.

We are seeing the same actions always triggering the same reactions that we are starting to think that this is simply natural. We stop to think what lies behind it and assume that it is just a characteristic of the universe to respond in certain ways. We take causality for granted. To claim that nothing can break causality we first need to understand what causality is and why it manifests in the way it does. And so far science has offered us nothing to work with. So what do you think is behind causality? Why do certain actions have certain reactions? Could there be something that governs this?

Firstly, it is necessary to clarify the Buddhist concept of 'causation'. It does not refer to isloated phenomena and laws, such as one apple falling to earth and the theory of gravity predicting that behaviour. Buddhism does not deny such phenomena exist, but believes they are merely mental constructions. The idea that objects such as the apple, or the earth that attracts it, have objective independence, that they exist apart from conciousness, is simply not true. Buddhists do not reject such everyday phenomena and neither do they reject science and mathematics - clearly it would be foolish to do so - but they do believe that if we look deeper at the world we see the way it really is - devoid of any intrinisic existence.

Buddhist causality includes everything.. not one, or two, or a million objects that have any objective material existence of their own, but everything, including conciousness. Everything is causally connected, interdependent. It therefore makes no sense to talk of anything 'behind' causality, or anything that might 'govern' it. There is nothing outside causality, and can be nothing outside therefore nothing can cause of influence it. Anything that could influence it, cause it, must be within it.

[Trumble]

I dont get it. What kind of experience was it exaclty?

A direct experience, a fundamental realisation. Not been told about it or reading about it but knowing it. The anology I gave earlier of explaining colour to a blind man is about the best I can come up with.

Another way to think of it is as a mystical experience in the traditional religious sense. Mystical traditions, seeking such direct experience of reality, or God, are common to all the Great Religions. There were Christian mystics, Hindu mystics, Jewish mystics and islamic mystics (sufis), although I understand Islam has pretty much rejected that aspect of itself. Among 'ordinary' people, it would be suggested by such phrases as "God spoke to me" or "I felt Gods all-loving presence" or anything similar. All such experiences are a sliver of direct realisation, a small taster of what it is to be a Buddha.

Did he die and come back to life and was able to tell the others that he was reincarnated?

No, he just died. Before he did he left teachings that would enable people to achieve such a fundamental understanding of "reality" as it actually is that they wouldn't have to go through the rebirth purpose to know it was there. It is important, though, to remember that Buddhists do not believe in life after death in any literal sense. 'They' could not be reborn as 'they' no longer exist.. just aspects of the stream of conciousness of which 'they' once consisted. What made the Buddha unique is that the last vestige of that conciousnessness stream ceased with his death, and he escaped the cycle of rebirth and inevitable suffering.

[Trumble]

is there a tradition of charity that would be comparable with that of The Big 3? i'm wondering because of the concept of karma.

Very much so, all Buddhists seek to obtain a sense of universal compassion for all sentient beings. That would be manifested in charitable works, gifts (from lay Buddhists) and helping the needy.

Karma, in Buddhist terms, needs to be considered very carefully. It is a little different from the Hindu concept of merit, of 'good' and 'bad' karma. The ultimate objective of Buddhist practice is to shed all personal attachments in favour of developing that universal compassion. Karma is that which results from creating and maintaining such attachment. While most attachments are the result of 'bad' or 'evil' things to varying degrees (lust, pride, avarice, greed etc) there can be 'good' attachments, too. Where that often gets misinterpreted is assuming that it must lead to the conclusion that Buddhists should not love their wife/husband or children as that love must be an 'attachment'. That is not correct. It is not the experience of love, but the attachment to it, clinging to past experience, dreaming of future experience, that accumulates karma, rather than just living in the now and appreciating what is not what was or what you want to be.

[Abdul Fattah]

The alternative is just as paradoxical. Assume that there was in fact a prime cause, which might as well be 'God' as anything. Such a prime cause would have to be immutable, unchanging. By definition it has no cause other than itself, so there is no reason for it to change. Change of any sort must imply the intervention of a further cause beyond the first cause. But it is impossible for something immutable to create anything! If it does, it must change in doing so.. simply from being something that has the potential to create to something that has created! And what causes it to create, to change? There can't be anything if it is a prime cause. If there is it is no longer immutable or omnipotent (something has influenced it).

I understand your arguments why time with a starting point is equally tricky; but I can see two objections against them from my point of view. Actually both are based on the same principle and are more or less the same. hey are a bit abstract to explain, but I'll give it a fair shot. The first one is regarding the requirement for change. In the world that we study it is true that there is never a loss or gain of energy, the total sum of all the energy of the universe is always the same, the only difference is the state of the energy. If you push a box, the box acquires new energy, but the energy comes from your muscles. If you burn the box new heat comes (energy) but that energy comes from the chemical bounds that are broken. So in this world we are used that in order to change something we have to invest change ourself. That is because we are bound to those laws of the universe. But if an entity created the universe, then it wouldn't be bound to the laws of the universe itself and it would not necessarily require change. In teh quran Allah subhana wa ta'ala says: 46:33: See they not that Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth, and never wearied with their creation, is able to give life to the dead? Yea, verily He has power over all things.

Now the same argument can be made about being dependent on time. Time is a material dimension which is part of the creation. To put it in a more simplistic way, people sometimes ask: why didn't Allah subhana wa ta'ala create the universe sooner. Or what did Allah subhana wa ta'ala do before he created the universe? To answer these question (and the question you raised) We need to rethink what dimensions actually are. People see dimensions as liberties of freedom. A point on a line can move over that line when it is free in that dimension. A point in a plane can move north, south, west and east or any combination of those when it is free over those two dimensions. But you could also see it the other way around. Real freedom is not being bound to dimensions. A point can only move in those two directions when it is bound to that one dimension. Or a point can only move S, N, E and W when it is bound to that plane. We can say the same about time. And if Allah subhana wa ta'ala created time as a dimension, as a limitation and he himself is not bound to that limitation than he is not limeted to "before" and "after". In your question you said: Such a prime cause would have to be immutable, unchanging. But that is wrong that is because you weren't thinking out of the box (I hate to use these cliché's but it really illustrates my point here just think "the box = time"). If the source is not bound to time it has the liberty to change even without time.

As I said, all phenomena are totally interdependent and have no independent existence apart from our perception of them, so causality could be understood to be relative in those terms. I don't think that the fact "we don't know why" is really relevant.

Ok let me try another to explain why the reason behind causality is important. Imagen an autistic child. Every morning his mother puts a cookie on his desk while he is still asleep. he never caught his mom, and he never asked her about the cookie, but as far back as he remembers there was always a cookie on his desk as he woke up. For him it is in the nature of cookies to appear on mornings on his desk. It is their natural causality. One day he has to sleep over someplace else with his parents, it's a real drama, but the next day he's back home. And the next morning there's a cookie again. So he starts thinking. On the morning of the night I didn't sleep here there wasn't a cookie. Otherwise I would have found when I gotten back. There was nobody else in the house and when we got back I ran to my room before anyone else could get there. And there was no cookie.So he thinks maybe cookies only magically appear in my room in the morning if I sleep in the room. Now this might seem stupid but in science we do this all the time. We see that one event always goes hand in hand with another and we assume that they are magically linked by causality. But we have no explanation of how sleeping in the room is correlated with the appearance of the cookie. But we do see that if one happens the other always follows. So we say there is a causal reaction. And if you'd be able to inquire to the autistic kid. He will be convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that for the rest of his life a cookie will appear on his desk if he sleeps in his room. It is causality. It has always happened as such, there is no reason to think that it could happen differently.

Everybody assumes there is a cause, and keeps looking for it; that cause could be anything from graviton interaction to God. If you consider quantum theory it seems at first glance that causality is thrown out the window, with bits of matter popping up here, there and everywhere without an obvious cause. Indeed it has been speculated that even an entire new universe could just pop out of 'nowhere' in that fashion.

So what do you think that the reason is? Am I correct when I assume you think that causality is an inherited characteristic of things. That there is nothing behind it, no God enforcing the causal link (=the magic of sleeping in the room). No "natural law" enforcing it (=a mother placing the cookie). It just is that way, no questions asked.

Surely there would be no 'causal law of holes' until an explanation had been suggested for why they kept popping up? Our flatlanders would assume there was a cause, and would speculate as to what it might be. Many might think it was the action of some sort of god. Perhaps a few cosmologists might postulate the existence of a '3rd dimension', invisible to normal perception, and indeed of a giant ice-pick that makes the holes. In both cases, then you have a 'causal law of holes'. In both cases it is merely a mental construction, the holes phenomena have no inherent existence apart from their observers - the phenomena requires both. You will see similarilities between that and both quantum physics and relativity; in both cases the phenomena being explained cannot be explained without reference to the observer. They are interdependent.

More then that, in both cases we people miss the point. In both cases we make a judgment by only knowing the tip of the iceberg.

Buddhist causality includes everything.. not one, or two, or a million objects that have any objective material existence of their own, but everything, including conciousness. Everything is causally connected, interdependent. It therefore makes no sense to talk of anything 'behind' causality, or anything that might 'govern' it. There is nothing outside causality, and can be nothing outside therefore nothing can cause of influence it. Anything that could influence it, cause it, must be within it.

And do you personally agree that there can be nothing outside of that totality, that everything that is must be included. That there is no beyond?

[Trumble]

And do you personally agree that there can be nothing outside of that totality, that everything that is must be included. That there is no beyond?

That is both my, and Buddhist belief. Totality must, by definition, include everything; there can be no 'beyond'. Perhaps the most significant point, though is that Buddhist cosmology requires nothing beyond. The 'God' solution answers a 'question' that in Buddhist terms simply does not need to be asked. Using your own analogy in a slightly different context, it is like trying to explain the appearance of cookies when no cookies are appearing! What use is there to a hypothetical solution (and very much a faith based one) to a non-existent problem?

Now the same argument can be made about being dependent on time. Time is a material dimension which is part of the creation. To put it in a more simplistic way, people sometimes ask: why didn't Allah subhana wa ta'ala create the universe sooner. Or what did Allah subhana wa ta'ala do before he created the universe? To answer these question (and the question you raised) We need to rethink what dimensions actually are. People see dimensions as liberties of freedom. A point on a line can move over that line when it is free in that dimension. A point in a plane can move north, south, west and east or any combination of those when it is free over those two dimensions. But you could also see it the other way around. Real freedom is not being bound to dimensions. A point can only move in those two directions when it is bound to that one dimension. Or a point can only move S, N, E and W when it is bound to that plane. We can say the same about time. And if Allah subhana wa ta'ala created time as a dimension, as a limitation and he himself is not bound to that limitation than he is not limeted to "before" and "after". In your question you said: Such a prime cause would have to be immutable, unchanging. But that is wrong that is because you weren't thinking out of the box (I hate to use these cliché's but it really illustrates my point here just think "the box = time"). If the source is not bound to time it has the liberty to change even without time.

Much the same answer. Yes, you could say that change must be a function of time, but I still don't see how God could influence his creation without being influenced by it no matter how far 'out-of-the-box' you go. It's not just a question of 'time' (which has no intrinsic existence anyway). However many dimensions you may have in the act of creation something changed.. the creative act must represent change.

I have no problem with going out of the box, and indeed acceptance of the Buddhist scheme of things pretty much requires it; it can be 'proved' neither scientifically or philosophically only experienced directly. BUT, by going out of the box, you must accept that your (and my) positions immediately become faith based. I have no inherent problem with that either, but faith based solutions serve no purpose unless they answer a problem. In Buddhism, in the context of the existence of God, that problem does not exist, as I said before.

So what do you think that the reason is? Am I correct when I assume you think that causality is an inherited characteristic of things. That there is nothing behind it, no God enforcing the causal link (=the magic of sleeping in the room). No "natural law" enforcing it (=a mother placing the cookie). It just is that way, no questions asked.

No, you are not correct, as in the Buddhist view there are no 'things' to have any intrinsic characteristics. Nor are there such 'things' as intrinsic characteristics! The perception of 'things' with any independent existence and characteristics is purely illusory, a mental construct. Likewise, any laws relating to them, or causal relationships we may believe exist between them, are also merely illusory. All that exists are phenomena, including conciousness, ever changing, and totally interdependent. Nothing has any intrinsic existence apart from everything else. Reality is what Buddhists describe as 'emptiness'. Not nihilism, you can't have nothing without implying the existence of something not to have, nor materialist realism, but a 'middle way' between them.

At one level such constructs are universal. They are how we interpret reality and enable us to function in the everyday world, but that does not alter the fact that constructs is all they are. Be it the kid and the cookie, the theologian pondering God, or the cosmologist formulating theories of the Big Bang, the principle is the same. Buddhists believe there is indeed something beyond the everyday world of appearances; not a God, but reality itself. Man alone (to our knowledge, although Buddhism would not exclude other candidates) has the capacity, while still existing perfectly in the world, to realise and directly experience that that world is nothing but a reflection of reality - like looking at an object in a mirror - not reality itself.

Yes, I know all of that is pretty much out-of-the-box too! It is a purely metaphysical position, and like any such cannot be 'proved'. But as a metaphysics it has certain notable characteristics. In can embrace science and psychology completely and effortlessly. And it requires no outside cause, no beginning, no end. And no God. It doesn't actually discount one (except as first cause) but simply doesn't need one.

[Abdul Fattah]

That is both my, and Buddhist belief. Totality must, by definition, include everything; there can be no 'beyond'. Perhaps the most significant point, though is that Buddhist cosmology requires nothing beyond. The 'God' solution answers a 'question' that in Buddhist terms simply does not need to be asked. Using your own analogy in a slightly different context, it is like trying to explain the appearance of cookies when no cookies are appearing! What use is there to a hypothetical solution (and very much a faith based one) to a non-existent problem?

Ok,I see.

Much the same answer. Yes, you could say that change must be a function of time, but I still don't see how God could influence his creation without being influenced by it no matter how far 'out-of-the-box' you go. It's not just a question of 'time' (which has no intrinsic existence anyway).

Oh no I beg to differ. Time has an equally intrinsic existence as the rest of the universe has. Gravity can even bend time. Time is very much materialistic. Unless of course you meant that time is unreal in a similar way as the rest of the universe is unreal. In which I would question your definition of reality. :)

However many dimensions you may have in the act of creation something changed.. the creative act must represent change.

Why? on what base do you state so? Aren't you assuming here that the creator creates under the laws of physics that we are used to? But why would that be the case. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but from my point of view you're being narrow-minded. On what ground can you make a conclusion of the requirements for creation if those creations would be outside of the rules of causality that we are bound to?

I have no problem with going out of the box, and indeed acceptance of the Buddhist scheme of things pretty much requires it; it can be 'proved' neither scientifically or philosophically only experienced directly. BUT, by going out of the box, you must accept that your (and my) positions immediately become faith based. I have no inherent problem with that either, but faith based solutions serve no purpose unless they answer a problem. In Buddhism, in the context of the existence of God, that problem does not exist, as I said before.

Yes indeed you pinpointed the problem exactly, just as any other discussion in the topics in this forum, this is the problem. Which begs the question, where does your faith come from? What source does it have when you have neither proof nor explanation backing you up? (just in case that comes out bad, this is not a rethorical question, but a genuine inquiry :) )

No, you are not correct, as in the Buddhist view there are no 'things' to have any intrinsic characteristics. Nor are there such 'things' as intrinsic characteristics! The perception of 'things' with any independent existence and characteristics is purely illusory, a mental construct. Likewise, any laws relating to them, or causal relationships we may believe exist between them, are also merely illusory. All that exists are phenomena, including conciousness, ever changing, and totally interdependent. Nothing has any intrinsic existence apart from everything else. Reality is what Buddhists describe as 'emptiness'. Not nihilism, you can't have nothing without implying the existence of something not to have, nor materialist realism, but a 'middle way' between them.

I'm afraid whe're back to square one then, because if the laws of causality do not happen because of an intrinsic nature of the subject they govern, then what is it that causes this causality? Why is it that certain actions have certain reactions? What maintains this relationship between action and reaction?

Hope I'm boring you to much with my questions, I feel bad for hijacking your thread. :)
Well I'm off now, bye

[Trumble]

Unless of course you meant that time is unreal in a similar way as the rest of the universe is unreal. In which I would question your definition of reality. :)

That is exactly what I mean, and of course you question it! We would not be having this discussion otherwise. I haven't attempted to 'define' reality though, that is not possible, any more than 'defining' God is possible in anything other than the dictionary sense. At best I have very poorly described something that cannot be described anyway, it has to be experienced.

Aren't you assuming here that the creator creates under the laws of physics that we are used to? But why would that be the case. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but from my point of view you're being narrow-minded. On what ground can you make a conclusion of the requirements for creation if those creations would be outside of the rules of causality that we are bound to?

My argument was logical, not scientific. I am unable to see any logical way in which the act of creation could not result in change to its creator in the terms I have described using whatever laws of physics you may choose to come up with. You can go 'outside the box' in terms of logic too, of course, but in doing so you are immediately accepting a totally faith based position. If you take that step, you could postulate alternative rules of logic (or lack of them) that would allow anything you like. And as I said, why postulate any conclusions regarding requirements for creation if your basic metaphysical position has no need of any creation?

Which begs the question, where does your faith come from? What source does it have when you have neither proof nor explanation backing you up? (just in case that comes out bad, this is not a rethorical question, but a genuine inquiry :) )

Much the same place as yours, probably. I should point out, though, that all of this has very little to do with the heart of Buddhism. Buddhist philosophy and cosmology is not 'Buddhism' any more than Islamic philosophy is 'Islam'. What really matters is its practices; and as I mentioned before even the Buddha presented those as suck-it-and-see. Those practices have one purpose and one purpose only, the cessation of suffering. Understanding and experiencing reality is one of the means, not the end. The more those teachings work for you, maybe you gain small glimpses of direct experience of 'reality' as I have described, or maybe you just notice yourself becoming a happier and better person, the more 'faith' you have in what lies behind them. Buddhism is a religion, and not 'just' a philosophy. In my case Buddhist metaphysics also happens to make sense, although of course I can't 'prove' they are right. But you can accept any metaphysics, any philosophy, any religion you like, it won't touch your life unless you experience it. Any teachings are pointless unless you follow them at least far enough to establish whether they work.

I'm afraid whe're back to square one then, because if the laws of causality do not happen because of an intrinsic nature of the subject they govern, then what is it that causes this causality? Why is it that certain actions have certain reactions? What maintains this relationship between action and reaction?

There are no 'subjects' for them to govern! That's the whole point. They are merely mental constructs, illusions, with no intrinsic existence. Certain actions have certain reactions because that is how we 'choose' to construct our model of reality, but that model is not reality itself. Buddhist causation is a metaphysical conception of reality, not an alternative physics. Reality is constant change, constant flux, and no 'things' exist separate from everything else. Nothing is needed to maintain it. Even if it were you can't introduce any concepts as to what might be and change the problem in any way. You can build a God into the picture if you like, or not, it makes absolutely no difference. Sure, by going 'outside the box' you can postulate something 'outside' everything. But that solves nothing (and as I keep saying there is nothing to solve); what then might be outside the something that is outside everything, everything now being extended to include what was previously outside it? And what might be 'outside' that? And outside that? Logically, if you accept the possibility of one 'outside' you must accept the possibility of an infinity of 'outsides'. Why not just accept it and bundle the whole lot as 'everything' in the first place? Not doing so, changing the rules halfway through (like claiming this process stops after the first time - the first God) is as OK as any other sort of speculation, but it is totally faith based. Again, there is no 'proof' or 'explanation'. It can't be proved or explained, it can only be experienced. That is the faith (as opposed to philosophical) element. We are in the same position.. and maybe it is just that position that defines religion?

[Abdul Fattah]

That is exactly what I mean, and of course you question it! We would not be having this discussion otherwise. I haven't attempted to 'define' reality though, that is not possible, any more than 'defining' God is possible in anything other than the dictionary sense. At best I have very poorly described something that cannot be described anyway, it has to be experienced.

There are no 'subjects' for them to govern! That's the whole point. They are merely mental constructs, illusions, with no intrinsic existence.

Well see the thing that troubles me is, you said something along the lines of reality is an illusion of our consciousness (hope I got that right). So that suggests you do believe in the existence of that conscience. Now how does that make reality "unreal". The way I see this is a dramatically different way of viewing reality, different then mainstream science sees it, perhaps even different then oxford dictionary sees it; but it is nevertheless a reality. Sort of a I-think-therefor-I-am-reality. And if in that universe there are causal laws, that govern actions and reactions then that means they have both a method of govern the reactions as well as an enforcing of those laws that seem to govern whatever it is they govern. To oversimplify it, say that you could bend spoons with your mind just because reality is a construct of your consciousness then that means first of all that this consciousness was enabled to construct his reality, and that means that it is enabled to interact with it in a certain way (e.i. bend the spoon, I know it's a cliche, but you get the point right ;) )

My argument was logical, not scientific. I am unable to see any logical way in which the act of creation could not result in change to its creator in the terms I have described using whatever laws of physics you may choose to come up with.

Well I would say your logic is biased with science since your logic is derived from the logicality's you've learned trough your environment which are in their turn subjected to the laws of science. It seems like a logical conclusion because that is what science has always thought us. But there is no philosophical argument to claim that creating alters the creator. In fact I 'm inclined to think that a creator is not subjected to his creation and is therefor not necessarily affected by it. IF he were, then it would much rather be the case of "modification". Like an artist who modifies an existing rock to "create" a statue. He and the rock are both peers in the sense that they are bound to the same rules of causality. Altering the statue requires energy so the artist as peer needs to produce from within himself the required energy (kinetic energy from the muscles). To suggest the same is true for a superior being to really "create" inferiorly suggests it is similar to the modification of peers; which it by definition is not.

And as I said, why postulate any conclusions regarding requirements for creation if your basic metaphysical position has no need of any creation?

Why postulate the opposite? As for arguments being faith bound, well creation is something from within the realms of faith-knowledge, so there is absolutely no way to approach it from a strictly scientific or pragmatic way.

But you can accept any metaphysics, any philosophy, any religion you like, it won't touch your life unless you experience it. Any teachings are pointless unless you follow them at least far enough to establish whether they work.

Yeah to some extend I agree. But something has to trigger the first step, intrigue you well enough to invest into it. I thought perhaps there was a personal motive; like it is the case for my belief in Islam.

There are no 'subjects' for them to govern! That's the whole point. They are merely mental constructs, illusions, with no intrinsic existence. Certain actions have certain reactions because that is how we 'choose' to construct our model of reality, but that model is not reality itself. Buddhist causation is a metaphysical conception of reality, not an alternative physics. Reality is constant change, constant flux, and no 'things' exist separate from everything else. Nothing is needed to maintain it. Even if it were you can't introduce any concepts as to what might be and change the problem in any way.

So technically speaking, you could bend spoons by looking at 'm?

You can build a God into the picture if you like, or not, it makes absolutely no difference. Sure, by going 'outside the box' you can postulate something 'outside' everything. But that solves nothing (and as I keep saying there is nothing to solve); what then might be outside the something that is outside everything, everything now being extended to include what was previously outside it? And what might be 'outside' that? And outside that? Logically, if you accept the possibility of one 'outside' you must accept the possibility of an infinity of 'outsides'. Why not just accept it and bundle the whole lot as 'everything' in the first place? Not doing so, changing the rules halfway through (like claiming this process stops after the first time - the first God) is as OK as any other sort of speculation, but it is totally faith based. Again, there is no 'proof' or 'explanation'. It can't be proved or explained, it can only be experienced. That is the faith (as opposed to philosophical) element. We are in the same position.. and maybe it is just that position that defines religion?

Yeah you're defenetly right about that one, doesn't hurt to compare views though, right? :)

[Trumble]

Well see the thing that troubles me is, you said something along the lines of reality is an illusion of our consciousness (hope I got that right). So that suggests you do believe in the existence of that conscience. Now how does that make reality "unreal". The way I see this is a dramatically different way of viewing reality, different then mainstream science sees it, perhaps even different then oxford dictionary sees it; but it is nevertheless a reality. Sort of a I-think-therefor-I-am-reality.

It's certainly dramatically different, yes. I think we can forget the OED as the idea of providing a dictionary definition of 'reality' that in any tangible way represents TRUTH is as absurd as producing one regarding GOD. The Buddhist concept of reality isn't so much different from the scientific one as beyond it, it is actually quite happy to accept science (often far more so than the monotheistic religions) whatever it may come up, with the proviso that whatever phenomenon science attempts to describe actually has no 'real' intrinsic existence apart from its interaction with both us and everything else. Science 'supports' that to a degree, if you look at quantum theory, which suggests that phenomena have no such independent existence. A photon behaves as a wave until you observe it, upon which it then behaves, totally differently, as a particle. In science, too, 'things' have no independent existence apart from their observer.

To oversimplify it, say that you could bend spoons with your mind just because reality is a construct of your consciousness then that means first of all that this consciousness was enabled to construct his reality, and that means that it is enabled to interact with it in a certain way.

As to spoons, Buddhism is not an idealist philosophy. It is not reality that is the product of consciousness (or to be precise the interaction of conciousness with everything else), but an interpretative model of it...'our' subjective reality if you like. While conciousness streams are present and intertwined with everything else, they have no control over that interpretative process. Conciousness has no persistent existence, it arises on moment after the next, conditioned by what came before and conditioning what comes afterwards, but not the same as either. You can't 'choose' your reality because there is nothing to choose it.

Why postulate the opposite? As for arguments being faith bound, well creation is something from within the realms of faith-knowledge, so there is absolutely no way to approach it from a strictly scientific or pragmatic way.

Because the opposite is simpler, although it is accepted rather than postulated. The need for creation adds a lot of complexity to the mix (especially if it needs a God - how complex can you get!), but Buddhist metaphysics simply does require a creation - so why bring in that complexity with no justification? Creation gets cut down by what in the West is called 'Occam's Razor'... go for the simplest explanation that fits the facts, as it is most likely to be right. You are quite right on the second point, of course.

Yeah to some extend I agree. But something has to trigger the first step, intrigue you well enough to invest into it. I thought perhaps there was a personal motive; like it is the case for my belief in Islam.

There is. I tried meditational practice (Zen, initially) and for me it worked enough to explore further.

doesn't hurt to compare views though, right? :)

Indeed, that's the whole point of this particular sub-forum. :) People who hide away from other points of view for fear they may somehow 'infect' their own faith fail to understand that their own beliefs can be re-enforced as well. In same cases it is commonality between religions - all of them have pretty much the same codes of ethics, for example. In others you may simply see a point where is there disagreement, and say "no.. I don't agree with that, even though I now understand it a little better" and your own belief is stronger than ever.

[north_malaysian]

Is being a vegetarian, optional or obligatory in Buddhism?

[Abdul Fattah]

It's certainly dramatically different, yes. I think we can forget the OED as the idea of providing a dictionary definition of 'reality' that in any tangible way represents TRUTH is as absurd as producing one regarding GOD. The Buddhist concept of reality isn't so much different from the scientific one as beyond it, it is actually quite happy to accept science (often far more so than the monotheistic religions) whatever it may come up, with the proviso that whatever phenomenon science attempts to describe actually has no 'real' intrinsic existence apart from its interaction with both us and everything else. Science 'supports' that to a degree, if you look at quantum theory, which suggests that phenomena have no such independent existence. A photon behaves as a wave until you observe it, upon which it then behaves, totally differently, as a particle. In science, too, 'things' have no independent existence apart from their observer.

Actually this is a huge misconception that was told in "what the bleep we know". It is true that sometimes electrons seem to be wavy and at other times they seem to be particles. However that has nothing to do with our observation of them. Certain tests will make it look like were dealing with waves and other tests make it look like were dealing with particles. The outcome is a result of the method in which we test it and the equipment we use. We make the electrons interact with our equipment in a certain way, and hence it does. So the difference in appearance is due to the equipment that interacts with it, not due to the observation of the tester.

As to spoons, Buddhism is not an idealist philosophy. It is not reality that is the product of consciousness (or to be precise the interaction of consciousness with everything else), but an interpretative model of it...'our' subjective reality if you like. While consciousness streams are present and intertwined with everything else, they have no control over that interpretative process. Consciousness has no persistent existence, it arises on moment after the next, conditioned by what came before and conditioning what comes afterwards, but not the same as either. You can't 'choose' your reality because there is nothing to choose it.

So there are inherited laws which our conscience abides to. Or is this method of interaction due to an inherited characteristic of our consciousness?

Because the opposite is simpler, although it is accepted rather than postulated. The need for creation adds a lot of complexity to the mix (especially if it needs a God - how complex can you get!), but Buddhist metaphysics simply does require a creation - so why bring in that complexity with no justification? Creation gets cut down by what in the West is called 'Occam's Razor'... go for the simplest explanation that fits the facts, as it is most likely to be right. You are quite right on the second point, of course.

Well first of all my question was not about creation vs. no creation but about creation causes creator to change vs. creation doesn't causes creator to change. And in the later question I would say that an explanation without the change is simpler then a explanation with the change.

Now however you have brought up an interesting argument I would like to respond to: does oxhams razor tell us creation is false?

So you have two views being:
[Pro anthropic theory:] When considering the complex way the rules of physics manifest themselves in both physiology and cosmology it seems obvious that the slightest change in any factor of physics or any change in the nature of the universe would have made life impossible. It all started with a design of life; then the universe was custom made in order for such life to exist. Such a well balanced universe and complicated creatures cannot be the result of mere luck. This order suggests creation.

[Contra anthropic theory:] This appreciation of the inherited characteristics of nature is a result of both the ignorance of people while being overwhelmed by information that is beyond their comprehension as well as their imagination. Order is subjective. In reality things are very disordered, but we just categorize them in an ordered way. If the laws of physics were different, we would have classified and ordered them differently. And life could very well have exist albeit then in a completely different way then we now know it. Probably to different for our limited minds to comprehend. Such a hypothetical life would simply evolve different from the way it has evolved now. this based on the fact that different laws of nature would call for different adaptations. Everything started as a result of the laws of the universe. That life rose out of these natural inherited laws is the result of mere luck.

We notice the contra argument can defend itself with Ockham’s razor because an explanation without a design is simpler then an explanation with a design. But at the same time the pro argument can also defend itself with Ockham’s razor because a purpose minded design seems much simpler then appointing the miraculous characteristics of the universe to nothing more then coincidence. This because luck isn’t something real. Its just a term to indicate that something happens against expectations. Most of the time that is because when we make our expectations we fail to include all factors that play a significant role. When we win the lottery we call it luck, we can even calculate the chance of winning mathematically. But in the end, the numbers are not decided by luck. there is no chance, the balls with the numbers simply follow the laws of physics. Their movement is just to complex for us to calculate the outcome. So when one says that life is the result of luck that’s just another way of saying: we fail to comprehend all the factors that play a decisive role in it. It’s simply to complex. So the contra argument attempted to cover up this need for causal chain of events going back all the way to big bang. And it covered this up by claiming it was mere luck. Now if we assume that there actually is such a causal chain of events; then -according to Ockham’s razor- the contra argument the more complex one; and hence less likely to be true.

However this difference in judgement is not due to a paradoxical nature of Ockham’s razor, nor due to an inherited paradox in the anthropic theory. It is much rather the result of the two different starting points of the respectively defending atheists and theists. An atheist is biased by his view that there is nothing beyond science. Therefore –to him- such a design seems like an unnecessary expansion of his perspective of the world. Whereas a theist is biased by his view that there is a Creator, which makes the notion of “coincidence” look like an uncalled expansion of his world-view. So in conclusion I think both parties have to agree that the use of Ockham’s razor when comparing viewpoints is rather tricky.

[Trumble]

Actually this is a huge misconception that was told in "what the bleep we know". It is true that sometimes electrons seem to be wavy and at other times they seem to be particles. However that has nothing to do with our observation of them. Certain tests will make it look like were dealing with waves and other tests make it look like were dealing with particles. The outcome is a result of the method in which we test it and the equipment we use. We make the electrons interact with our equipment in a certain way, and hence it does. So the difference in appearance is due to the equipment that interacts with it, not due to the observation of the tester.

Mostly true (the "that has nothing to do with our observation of them" part is not), but it is irrelevant to what I was saying, which had nothing to do with the experimental observation of wave/particle duality. The point I made concerns pure theory, not the 'observer effect' of experimental observation.

According to quantum mechanics if the outcome of a possible event has not been observed it exists in a state of superposition, that is all possible states 'exist' at once. That has actually been interpreted in several different ways, but rather than me trying to describe what I don't pretend to fully understand anyway try the Wiki entry on the famous 'Schrödinger's Cat' thought experiment.

So there are inherited laws which our conscience abides to. Or is this method of interaction due to an inherited characteristic of our consciousness?

No to the second, because consciousness has no inherent existence apart from everything else, and therefore can have no characteristics independent of everything else. I guess you could say that there must be 'rules' by which reality functions, at which point you will no doubt suggest that it is God who created them and enforces them? The Buddhist response would be in two parts. Firstly that that is just the way things are, and they cannot be any other way. Bringing in a God is therefore nonsense as it implies things would somehow be different if those laws were 'created' or enforced differently, be they could not be different. Second, and not just a Buddhist point by any means, invoking a God just leaves you with the same problem only with another layer of complexity - which tales us back to where we were before.

Whereas a theist is biased by his view that there is a Creator, which makes the notion of “coincidence” look like an uncalled expansion of his world-view. So in conclusion I think both parties have to agree that the use of Ockham’s razor when comparing viewpoints is rather tricky.

Absolutely, but I made perfectly clear that I was talking about creation (or lack of it) in terms of Buddhist metaphysics only. Using a different set of metaphysical assumptions (i.e theist), Occam's Razor may well 'cut' something else, i.e a non-creation. In 'everyday' terms it has actually been claimed to support both points of view.

[Abdul Fattah]

Mostly true (the "that has nothing to do with our observation of them" part is not),

Actually I'm quite confident that according to science the observer plays absolutely no role in the this. The behavior of the electrons is determined by the equipment we use to examen them not by the examinator's awareness.

According to quantum mechanics if the outcome of a possible event has not been observed it exists in a state of superposition, that is all possible states 'exist' at once. That has actually been interpreted in several different ways, but rather than me trying to describe what I don't pretend to fully understand anyway try the Wiki entry on the famous 'Schrödinger's Cat' thought experiment.

Well superposition is man-made. If you ask me, superposition doesn't refer to a state of an electron, but rather to the fact that we do not know what/where the electron actually is because we simply can't "look" at that level.

No to the second, because consciousness has no inherent existence apart from everything else, and therefore can have no characteristics independent of everything else. I guess you could say that there must be 'rules' by which reality functions, at which point you will no doubt suggest that it is God who created them and enforces them? The Buddhist response would be in two parts. Firstly that that is just the way things are, and they cannot be any other way. Bringing in a God is therefore nonsense as it implies things would somehow be different if those laws were 'created' or enforced differently, be they could not be different. Second, and not just a Buddhist point by any means, invoking a God just leaves you with the same problem only with another layer of complexity - which tales us back to where we were before.

I think your position here is a lil' bit contradictory, when you say: "that that is just the way things are" isn't that the same as saying: it's an inherited characteristic of the "reality". It is the natural way for things to do. And no offense, but you're still not thinking outside of the box. you're saying a creator outside would have the same problem, by what 'rules' does it abide. so instead of looking outside the box, you're just expanding the box so it can fit both our reality and the external creator, but since that creator is still in the box it still follows rules. you're still seeing creation as a causal action that follows the same rules of nature as we do. If you think of a creator which is truly omnipotent then suddenly this problem is gone and there needs to be no bigger ruling.

[Trumble]

Actually I'm quite confident that according to science the observer plays absolutely no role in the this. The behavior of the electrons is determined by the equipment we use to examen them not by the examinator's awareness.

I suppose that would depend on how you define 'observation' in this context, but the point is simply not relevant. As I said, you are confusing the 'observer effect' with the basic principles of quantum mechanics. The Wiki article makes the position quite clear.

Well superposition is man-made. If you ask me, superposition doesn't refer to a state of an electron, but rather to the fact that we do not know what/where the electron actually is because we simply can't "look" at that level.

Again, your position seems rather different to everybody else's! Now you seem to be just dismissing the Uncertainty Principle - with what possible justification? I'd point out that superposition applies to everything, not just electrons, which you seem rather hung up on. The classic experiment demonstrating superposition in action is the 'double slit' through which photons are fired (light). Each photon not only passes through both slits but takes every possible trajectory to reach the target. It is limited to only a single possibility when we observe it.

I think your position here is a lil' bit contradictory, when you say: "that that is just the way things are" isn't that the same as saying: it's an inherited characteristic of the "reality". It is the natural way for things to do. And no offense, but you're still not thinking outside of the box. you're saying a creator outside would have the same problem, by what 'rules' does it abide. so instead of looking outside the box, you're just expanding the box so it can fit both our reality and the external creator, but since that creator is still in the box it still follows rules. you're still seeing creation as a causal action that follows the same rules of nature as we do. If you think of a creator which is truly omnipotent then suddenly this problem is gone and there needs to be no bigger ruling.

We have been here before.

You can come up with as many 'out of the box' ideas as you like, but there is simply no need to do so. Buddhist metaphysics and cosmology have nothing that needs explaining by the existence of a truly omnipotent creator, so why postulate one? There simply is no 'problem'. You might as well go outside the box and consider that 'reality' as I have described it all sits on the back of a giant turtle swimming in another 'reality' box. All you have to do is say the turtle is somehow immune from the same rules as everything else and, in your terms, it is just as valid a postulate as God. I have also explained how an omnipotent 'creator' must be immutable, logically following which it cannot change and therefore cannot create. Your only response has been to throw away logic as well, which as I said is fair enough but you need a reason to justify doing it. Buddhism has no such reason. It doesn't prove there is no creator God, but it just doesn't need one.

[Trumble]

Is being a vegetarian, optional or obligatory in Buddhism?

Sorry, I missed that earlier.

Like everything else in Buddhism it is optional, but most Buddhists are. Vegetarianism is always part of the rules in formal Buddhist communities, such as monasteries, with exceptions only where a vegetarian diet is not practical for geographical reasons (such as parts of the Himalayas).

[north_malaysian]

... and Malaysia too. Most of Chinese Buddhists here eat meat.

[Trumble]

Does that include those living a monastic life, or just lay-Buddhists?

[north_malaysian]

Does that include those living a monastic life, or just lay-Buddhists?

lay buddhists. The monks and nuns are strictly vegetarians. When a Muslim wants to eat in a Chinese restaurant, they'll go to the vegetarian ones.

[Abdul Fattah]

I suppose that would depend on how you define 'observation' in this context, but the point is simply not relevant. As I said, you are confusing the 'observer effect' with the basic principles of quantum mechanics. The Wiki article makes the position quite clear.

Again, your position seems rather different to everybody else's! Now you seem to be just dismissing the Uncertainty Principle - with what possible justification? I'd point out that superposition applies to everything, not just electrons, which you seem rather hung up on. The classic experiment demonstrating superposition in action is the 'double slit' through which photons are fired (light). Each photon not only passes through both slits but takes every possible trajectory to reach the target. It is limited to only a single possibility when we observe it.

First of all you're mixing two things up. the uncertainty principle is the principle that due to it's wavy nature we are unable to simultaneously examine both the course and the speed of certain particles. So since we can only measure one at the time that means we never have enough data to pinpoint it's location, therefor e calculate a probability space in which the particles probably reside.

As for superposition, that is a different phenomena that certain particles can sometimes appear to be at different places simultaneously.

Now how are those two related? Well we have found that these particles in turn are build up out of quarks. Some sort of subatomic particles. Now it is very plausible that when we project a particle on a screen with two wholes that these quarks can easily split up and each go a parallel different way. Whereas a screen with a single hole would force them to stick together. They would be forced to do so due to whatever force it is that keep them together (I think the strong force does that, but I'm not certain) It would not allow under normal circumstances to leave part of the electron behind at the first screen. As for the seperation in the first test, that wouldn't be a problem since there parallel courses makes them stay relatively close to one another. So it is purely a matter of the particles interacting with the equipment and not a question of dual existence and observation.

The problem whit this answer is that the uncertainty principle makes it impossible for us to test this.

You can come up with as many 'out of the box' ideas as you like, but there is simply no need to do so.

I know we've been there before, the reason I brought it up again was because you suggested that this out of the box would be an infinite loop. But that's proposturous. It would only need to be an infinite loop if the same rules aply outside of the box, in which case the borders of the box aren't really borders; and the outside is more of an expansion of the box in the same plane rather then a real "outside".

Buddhist metaphysics and cosmology have nothing that needs explaining by the existence of a truly omnipotent creator, so why postulate one?

Yes there is one thing that lacks an explanation, why do the rules in reality (whatever that is) govern the things the govern in that certain way. If it's their natural way of acting then there is a reason for that, if they are enforced by something, then there is something behind it, it seems that either answer is problematic with your view.

I have also explained how an omnipotent 'creator' must be immutable, logically following which it cannot change and therefore cannot create. Your only response has been to throw away logic as well,

No I never said trow away logic, I said that the arguments that you are trying to pass of as logic are biased by the laws of this world and are hence not universal logic. As far as the issue of creation altering creator concerns it is your "logical" arguments that are build on assumptions, not the other way around. Bringing in the fact that your view doesn't need it is absurd. I mean, it's like there are two puzzles, my paradigm and your paradigm. You take a piece of my puzzle, and you notice it doesn't fit in with your pieces and then trow it away as "impossible". And when I say well it's not impossible it fits right here you say well that is your view. Well of course it is my view. and I realize that very well, but the point is you cannot dismiss a view based on a different set of views. Either you ignore it all together or you look at the whole puzzle. Now to get back on creation, you brought up that argument because you have a different definition of creation. your defenition of creation is something I would call modification/alteration. Creation from my pov does not make the creator change.

[Trumble]

First of all you're mixing two things up. the uncertainty principle is the principle that due to it's wavy nature we are unable to simultaneously examine both the course and the speed of certain particles. So since we can only measure one at the time that means we never have enough data to pinpoint it's location, therefor e calculate a probability space in which the particles probably reside.
As for superposition, that is a different phenomena that certain particles can sometimes appear to be at different places simultaneously.

I'M not mixing anything up. The whole point is not that we can't "pinpoint its location", it is that until we observe it it has no location, only a probabilty function as to where, when observed it will appear. Your definition of superposition in this context is incorrect, it is not "that certain particles can sometimes appear to be at different places simultaneously", it is that until that position is fixed by observation they have the potential to appear anywhere, they 'exist' everywhere simultaneously; the potential exists for them to appear anywhere.

Now it is very plausible that when we project a particle on a screen with two wholes that these quarks can easily split up and each go a parallel different way.Whereas a screen with a single hole would force them to stick together. They would be forced to do so due to whatever force it is that keep them together (I think the strong force does that, but I'm not certain) It would not allow under normal circumstances to leave part of the electron behind at the first screen. As for the seperation in the first test, that wouldn't be a problem since there parallel courses makes them stay relatively close to one another.

Can you please provide a source for that that leads to the conclusion that

So it is purely a matter of the particles interacting with the equipment and not a question of dual existence and observation.

and relates it to any of the conventional interpretations of quantum mechanics? I rather feel I'm banging my head against a wall at the moment.

I know we've been there before, the reason I brought it up again was because you suggested that this out of the box would be an infinite loop. But that's proposturous. It would only need to be an infinite loop if the same rules aply outside of the box, in which case the borders of the box aren't really borders; and the outside is more of an expansion of the box in the same plane rather then a real "outside".

Again, I'll have to leave it as I don't see how I can make it any clearer. If going 'out of the box', means something outside everything (something, as I keep saying that is simply not required in Buddhist metaphysics anyway), there is no logical reason why that cannot continue ad infinitum, each time with a different set of rules/laws. Your argument amounts to no more than saying "no it doesn't", by conveniently defining (with no justification) the first 'out of the box' venture as excluding all others. It is that which is preposterous.

Yes there is one thing that lacks an explanation, why do the rules in reality (whatever that is) govern the things the govern in that certain way. If it's their natural way of acting then there is a reason for that, if they are enforced by something, then there is something behind it, it seems that either answer is problematic with your view.

Again, again, there is nothing problematic. Enforcement is not required if things cannot be other than they are.

No I never said trow away logic, I said that the arguments that you are trying to pass of as logic are biased by the laws of this world and are hence not universal logic.

I disagree, they are purely logical and have no such bias. I will set them out formally if you like, but a simple Google search on the subject should serve your purposes.

You take a piece of my puzzle, and you notice it doesn't fit in with your pieces and then trow it away as "impossible". And when I say well it's not impossible it fits right here you say well that is your view. Well of course it is my view.

It is not a case of 'impossibility', but logical contradiction. Again, again I seem to be repeating myself. Sure, I can quite happily go 'outside the box' again and accept logical contradictions on the basis of faith. In another context (debating with Ansar) I did just that. There is nothing wrong with faith, it is an integral component of religion. But in Buddhism this particular leap of faith simply is not required; it is redundant. Obviously in Islam that is not so, hence the irreconcilable difference in opinion.

I really suggest we leave it there mate, I just can't see this going anywhere other than round and round in circles. Time to agree to disagree?

[AvarAllahNoor]

Hi Trumble - What do you know of Guru Gompka Maharaj or Nanak Lama as known to Buddhists?

Here's more about it

In his lifetime Guru Nanak traveled to distant places and one such place was Tibet. Guru Nanak is well respected by Tibetan Buddhists who consider him a saint; The Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Buddhists in Tibet, has confirmed it in his discussions with some Sikh leaders and that Tibetans revere Guru Nanak as a Buddhist saint under the name of Guru Gompka Maharaj. According to the local legends of North Sikkim, some people approached Guru Ji with an appeal for help. The lake had remained frozen during most of the year and rendered it incapable as a source of water. Guru Nanak Dev Ji is said to have touched the lake with his foot, and it has never frozen since. Guru Nanak's footprints, a robe and a water-carrying utensil are preserved in a nearby place called Lachen Gompha. Here the locals refer to Guru Ji as Rimpoche Nanak Guru who on his way to Tibet had rested there.

Some grazers projected another problem to Guru Nanak Ji. Due to the effect of altitude, their virility was affected. They requested the Guru to do something about it. Guru Nanak blessed the lake, saying, "Whosoever takes the water of this lake will gain virility and strength and will be blessed with children." The people of the area have firm faith in Guru's words and consider the water of the lake as nectar. A Gurdwara was constructed in eighties to commemorate Guru Nanak's visit to the place

A story they tell is that Guru Ji had brought with him a rice meal packed in banana leaves, as is the custom even today in banana growing areas. The two commodities were unknown to the hill folks. Guru Ji having noticed their inquisitiveness bestowed them with a share of this strange cereal. They displayed forethought and instead of eating it sprinkled the rice over the meadow and buried the banana packing in a corner. Today the village harvests a rich crop of rice and bananas.

The local people of the area and Lamas of Karmapa Nyingmapa Sect confirm Guru Nanak's visit to these areas. The Lamas from these areas have been visiting Golden Temple, Amritsar, regularly to pay obeisance to their beloved Guru Rimpoche, Guru Nanak, also known as Nanak Lama in their areas. Guru Nanak's footprints, a robe and a water-carrying utensil (kamandal) are preserved in Lachen Gompha, Sikkim

[Abdul Fattah]

I really suggest we leave it there mate, I just can't see this going anywhere other than round and round in circles. Time to agree to disagree?

Yeah it seems to me that is the only thing we will be able to agree on.

[Trumble]

[B]Hi Trumble - What do you know of Guru Gompka Maharaj or Nanak Lama as known to Buddhists?

Nothing at all until I read your post! :) Interesting stuff.

[ManchesterFolk]

Man I really love Buddhism as a religion, but I cannot deal with the rejection of the existence of God. That is why I really am not a Buddhist. :p

I love the theories on pacifism etc.

[snakelegs]

Man I really love Buddhism as a religion, but I cannot deal with the rejection of the existence of God. That is why I really am not a Buddhist. :p

I love the theories on pacifism etc.

they're a Sensible Bunch, aren't they?

[ManchesterFolk]

they're a Sensible Bunch of people, aren't they?

Yeah, to bad the world cannot have there type of Sharia. It would probably lead us to world peace. Some people here might have to much time on there hands if there was world peace though, lol. :D :X

[Trumble]

By request, this thread re-opened with;

Are there any threads about Buddhism, like "Questions About Buddhism Answered by a Buddhist"? I was wondering the connection between Buddhism and Hinduism and how Buddha ended up believing in NO god if he was ever a part of Hinduism with its millions of gods.

A two part answer.

Firstly, the Buddha never was "part of Hinduism", there being no such thing at the time. It did not evolve into anything resembling its current form until after the Buddha's death. The prevailing popular religions, as far as were any, were the old Vedic practices of the Aryans which were supported by the caste system established in most places on the Gangetic Plain although not, incidently, in Sakka, the Buddha's own 'patch'. The 'dharmic' religions were new on the scene, including Jainism (still around) and the traditions arising from the Upanisads - both of which were more or less contemporary with the Buddha.

Secondly, 'Hinduism' is a western concept. It is not a unified religion but a catch-all for a vast number of traditions, which may include elements and 'gods' on both a 'cosmic' scale and a local scale. For example, somebody might worship Krishna, Lakshmi, or Ganesha while also worshipping local spirits or gods. Neither should be confused with the Abrahamic conception of God. The 'big' ones are ways of considering, or different manifestitions of, the same overall 'god' or Universal Reality. The smaller ones are really more 'supernatural beings' than 'gods' as such, capable of bestowing fortune or causing mischief. The "millions of gods" thing is not actually true. Hindu thinking is that all living beings are part of God as He is present in each and every one of them in the form of atman, the all pervading soul of the universe. Thus, in one sense every living being is God, and the ancient idea was that there were 330 million living beings, and hence 330 million 'gods'.

Back to the Buddha. 'Gods' were part of scenery in his time, most people believed in one and usually more be it the old Vedic gods or local spirits and such. The important thing to realise is that, to the Buddha, it didn't matter whether they existed or not. He didn't care either way. The reason was, as I said in the other thread, he knew that any such Gods must be subject to the same fundamental laws of cause and effect, suffering, rebirth and karma as people (and animals, and 'ghosts', and whatever). The Buddha's achievement was that he find the way to escape that cycle of suffering and rebirth forever.. spiritually that was beyond any 'god', and Buddhist mythology (the references are metaphorical, not literal, and are generally later additions to the original Pali canon) tells that the gods themselves turned up to witness and celebrate both Gotama's birth and his enlightenment.

[ummAbdillah]

hi,
do you believe in Biblical characters?
salaam

[Trumble]

hi,
do you believe in Biblical characters?
salaam

Yes, I think many were historical personages, such as the later Hebrew prophets. Many of the kings and such are established historical figures, of course. I think people like Jeremiah and, of course, Jesus were important religious figures, thinkers and mystics. But not 'prophets' in the sense that they were mouthpieces for, or indeed in Jesus' case a manifestation of, any God.

[ranma1/2]

on less serious but still curious note.

What did you think ofthe movie

little buddha "whooa im buddha"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Buddha
i still get a kick out of having Keanu Reaves in the film.

or

7 years in tibet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_years_in_tibet

[north_malaysian]

on less serious but still curious note.

What did you think ofthe movie

little buddha "whooa im buddha"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Buddha
i still get a kick out of having Keanu Reaves in the film.

or

7 years in tibet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_years_in_tibet

I've watched both movies, the first one about history of Buddha (and those 3 kids who are reincarnations of a monk). And the second one is about an Austrian soldier encounters with Dalai Lama (when he's lot younger)

Does "Little Buddha" potray the true history of Gautama Buddha?

eg. his mother was singing while holding a tree branch when she was giving birth to Buddha.

[Trumble]

I haven't seen either movie, I'm afraid, so I can't comment. Sorry. :-\

[north_malaysian]

I haven't seen either movie, I'm afraid, so I can't comment. Sorry. :-\

I think Little Buddha is the only western movies about the history of Gautama Buddha.

[vpb]

what is the majority in terms of nationality that represent buddhism?

[Trumble]

Source: www.buddhanet.net

[north_malaysian]

and how many countries made Buddhism as the official religion?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Hey Trumble.

I was watchin a documentary some days ago about Buddhism. Well not reallly everything about it. They kinda focused on a certain ritual/ceremony thing. Man I forgot the word, it was something like kamari. A goddess o something. And the monks go in search of a girl who has beauty, fair skin and is brave. To test that, they had the little girls walk between severed heads of boars...
So if any one of the girls willingly does it without fear, she is considered to be that goddess in i guess human form..? She stays in a temple area or somewhere and she cant take a step out. The only time she can is if like during a certain ceremony. And when she does step out, her feet cant touch the ground because its considered sacred. What I found a bit surprising was people going kind of crazy of her considering her to be a goddess. So most of her childhood goes like that. Most of the time, she doesnt recognize or respond when she sees her parents, as most kids would be excited. When she returns home, she has to learn to adapt in her family environment, all from scratch. She misses many years of her education and has trouble adapting in class. And also I think they said that those ex Kamari girls cannot marry even if they wanted too.

What I would like to know is if this is true? And to be honest it seems highly unfair. Missing most of her childhood, having to adapt without ease and not being able to marry, even if they wanted too. They showed 2 girls as an example of what its like when they r little and when they get older. So could you shed some light on this please :) Thanks.

[north_malaysian]

Hey Trumble.

I was watchin a documentary some days ago about Buddhism. Well not reallly everything about it. They kinda focused on a certain ritual/ceremony thing. Man I forgot the word, it was something like kamari. A goddess o something. And the monks go in search of a girl who has beauty, fair skin and is brave. To test that, they had the little girls walk between severed heads of boars...
So if any one of the girls willingly does it without fear, she is considered to be that goddess in i guess human form..? She stays in a temple area or somewhere and she cant take a step out. The only time she can is if like during a certain ceremony. And when she does step out, her feet cant touch the ground because its considered sacred. What I found a bit surprising was people going kind of crazy of her considering her to be a goddess. So most of her childhood goes like that. Most of the time, she doesnt recognize or respond when she sees her parents, as most kids would be excited. When she returns home, she has to learn to adapt in her family environment, all from scratch. She misses many years of her education and has trouble adapting in class. And also I think they said that those ex Kamari girls cannot marry even if they wanted too.

What I would like to know is if this is true? And to be honest it seems highly unfair. Missing most of her childhood, having to adapt without ease and not being able to marry, even if they wanted too. They showed 2 girls as an example of what its like when they r little and when they get older. So could you shed some light on this please :) Thanks.

Are u talking about those girls in Nepal? I think it's hinduism... not Buddhism.:?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Are you sure? They said it was Buddhism....well if its not thennnnnnnn forget it lol. Anyways if it was Hinduism...they wouldnt show monks..:?
Yea I think it was Nepal or Sri Lanka...

[Trumble]

and how many countries made Buddhism as the official religion?

Cambodia, Myanmar (Burma), Bhutan and Kalymkia. Yes, I had to look up the last one, too - apparently its a small European republic within the Russian Federation where the main religion is the Tibetan form of Buddhism!

In Sri Lanka Buddhism has the "foremost place" according to their constitution but it is not the 'official' religion. Buddhism is also the official religion the Tibetan government in exile, of course.

What I would like to know is if this is true? And to be honest it seems highly unfair. Missing most of her childhood, having to adapt without ease and not being able to marry, even if they wanted too. They showed 2 girls as an example of what its like when they r little and when they get older. So could you shed some light on this please :)

No, I'm afraid I can't as I have never heard of this. It is certainly not 'part of Buddhism' in any general sense and would seem to be some sort of local custom? It certainly sounds a lot more 'Hindu' than 'Buddhist', although in that part of the world anything is possible!

[north_malaysian]

Are you sure? They said it was Buddhism....well if its not thennnnnnnn forget it lol. Anyways if it was Hinduism...they wouldnt show monks..:?
Yea I think it was Nepal or Sri Lanka...

well... Hindu monks are different than Buddhist monks right... maybe trumble can explain this.

[north_malaysian]

It's hinduism.

http://www.rationalistinternational....1109/en_2.html

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Yea, I was confused myself cause one of the girls name was hindu, but they showed buddhist monks :confused: They didnt show anything hindu. Even my mom said they seem like they're hindu :X So umm I dunno lol.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

It's hinduism.

http://www.rationalistinternational....1109/en_2.html

Wurd...they lied! LOL! Ok then well u can ignore me LOL. My bad guys ;D

[north_malaysian]

Wurd...they lied! LOL! Ok then well u can ignore me LOL. My bad guys ;D

Hey... at least we both know that it's kinda unfair right? Regardless of the religious background of these Kumaris.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^Yea I agree.

[Trumble]

I think Little Buddha is the only western movies about the history of Gautama Buddha.

Picked that up on DVD after you mentioned it and have just finished watching it. Nice movie, and a good antidote to the Harun Yayha propaganda flick.

Yes, the 'story' bits are a reasonable telling of the Buddha's life up to and including his Enlightenment. The traditional story is something of a mix; the earliest parts from the Pali canon are much more historical in tone and miss out the embelishments added later. Those are principally symbolic and are metaphors for the conflict being fought out in Siddharta's mind (Mara, the girl temptresses, the army firing the arrows that turn to flower petals etc). Quite handy for a movie. "Bloke sits under tree for several hours in intense internal struggle while maintaining outward peace and serenity" wouldn't exactly make riveting cinema even for a Buddhist. The traditional story regarding the Buddha's birth is actually even more colourful, with the appearance of assorted gods and such, but again is metaphorical rather than historical.

Thanks for bringing the movie to my attention. :)

[north_malaysian]

Whoa a Buddhist bought a DVD on Buddhism suggested by a muslim...... what a weird world!!!!! :okay:

[Mr.President]

whats that "may triple gem bless u"

why many Buddhists use this ?

what is da meaning ?

[CosmicPathos]

Historically, Hinduism and Buddhism have been in conflict. Its surprising though that such philosophies were born in South Asia, among my own people. Interesting to see that. South Asians have been as developed as the "western" philosophical thought over the last 2.5k years.

[ardianto]

Historically, Hinduism and Buddhism have been in conflict.

But not in "Nusantara" (ancient Indonesia). If you read history of Indonesia you can find "Hindu-Buddhist period", an era when Hindus and Buddhists were living together, and there was no conflict between them.

I remember when I went to Bali, I visited an ancient Hindu's temple, and there's a Buddhist section in that temple.

[CosmicPathos]

But not in "Nusantara" (ancient Indonesia). If you read history of Indonesia you can find "Hindu-Buddhist period", an era when Hindus and Buddhists were living together, and there was no conflict between them.

I remember when I went to Bali, I visited an ancient Hindu's temple, and there's a Buddhist section in that temple.

Ooh, I meant philosophical conflict, not physical genocide, even though that also occurred historically. Hindu sages always have debated with Buddhist monks. Both religions are highly philosophical. If you read Upanishads, you'll realize what I mean. Same with Buddhist literature.

[ardianto]

Ooh, I meant philosophical conflict, not physical genocide, even though that also occurred historically. Hindu sages always have debated with Buddhist monks. Both religions are highly philosophical. If you read Upanishads, you'll realize what I mean. Same with Buddhist literature.

Ooohh... philosophical conflict. I thought you talked about war. :)

[Trumble]

whats that "may triple gem bless u"

why many Buddhists use this ?

what is da meaning ?

The Triple Gem or Three Refuges are the Buddha, the Buddha's teachings known the Dhamma, and the Sangha which is the community of partially enlightened people, or more generally ordained Buddhist monks and nuns.

I've never actually heard the phrase you quote, although that may well be just a geographical or language thing. Most Buddhist traditions, though, involve 'taking refuge' in the Triple Gem, often as part of formal ceremonies or less formal meetings, the wording of which goes back to the earliest Buddhist texts. The words are simply "I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Dhamma, I take refuge in the Sangha" although the original Pali loses something in the translation. "Take refuge", here means more "accept guidance from" than seeking protection from something, although there is a hint of "place my trust in" as well.

[Mr.President]

thanks now I got it but there are many questions I wanna ask but this would be my last question.

trumble I know about learned buddhists many of them claim that buddhism is 100% compatible with science so I would like to ask you can you please explain the KARMA and ANAATMA concept in Buddhism with simple science and logic (or with some examples)

[Trumble]

thanks now I got it but there are many questions I wanna ask but this would be my last question.

trumble I know about learned buddhists many of them claim that buddhism is 100% compatible with science so I would like to ask you can you please explain the KARMA and ANAATMA concept in Buddhism with simple science and logic (or with some examples)

I'm not aware of anything in which science and Buddhism actually conflict, but that isn't the same as saying Buddhism can be explained scientifically or established as being 'true' by use of the scientific method. Quite simply it can't, just as metaphysical or ethical systems can't be, and the other great religions can't be. Buddhism involves faith and belief rather than scientific 'proof' it's teachings are correct, just as the monotheistic religions do.

That said, karma is essentially just cause and effect. That is, of course, evident throughout the whole of science; science is all about causes and effects. The only difference is what those causes and effects are. In the case of karma they are principally moral in nature, although whether they are by necessity physical as well would require very long discussions about free will and determinism and the nature of consciousness which probably wouldn't reach any conclusion anyway (they never have so far!)

In the case of anatta (which is what I assume you mean) much the same things apply. Anatta is the idea that there is no permanent 'self', just a continual flow of ever changing phenomena that give the appearance of continuity. I'm not aware of any science that shows that to be either true or untrue. I am aware of Western philosophy that suggests something similar, principally that of Hume which many of those who followed (most notably Kant and Hegel) tried, and failed, to shoot down and just settled for suggesting far more convoluted alternatives instead. None of those ideas have been empirically demonstrated to be either true or untrue, either. :)

[Mr.President]

thx 4 ur answers :)