Questions on Buddhism - answered by a Buddhist!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Trumble
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 87
  • Views Views 15K
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.
 
mad_scientist said:
Historically, Hinduism and Buddhism have been in conflict.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ardianto said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mad_scientist said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ooohh... philosophical conflict. I thought you talked about war. :)
 
Mr.President said:
whats that "may triple gem bless u"

why many Buddhists use this ?

what is da meaning ?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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)
 
Mr.President said:
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)
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top