karma and rebirth

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

i have read much about zen buddism and yes according to this type of buddism enlightment can be done in the present lifetime but in zen buddism both concept karma and rebirth are accepted.

Some do, and some don't.
Rebirth is the trickier one.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

you're not only taking the stance that things need to be seen and proveable to be true and, thus, believed...but also that anything BEYOND those things is automatically stupid with no other explanation to back it up beyond "you can't prove it so it's not real so it's stupid." not the most enlightened position i've ever seen on the subject. :biggrin1:

So... the ancient Norse may have been on the right track... but I'm unenlightened? Yeah that makes sense. The Norse thought your concept of God was stupid, too. They're just not alive to tell you so, and so you don't have them to direct your passive aggression at. You, like many religious hypocrites, are trying to say that you live up to some ideal of being open minded about all things, even when you are implying that you are somehow more right than those who don't believe what you do. Just blindly believing in completely arbitrary made up stories is enlightened thinking, and being critical or skeptical of them is unenlightened? Sorry revered, but this is just another way of calling me stupid and condescending to someone who doesn't share your views. Being polite doesn't make you a more skilled debater. I also don't believe for one second that you actually believe in the literal truth of Norse mythology. Do your logical cartwheels all you want to try to make my position weaker, I'm not buying it.

 

[B_tallbig]

in buddism there is not a creator god so not creationism myths exists there

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

This fundamental need to understand and explain things makes most of us vulnerable to being duped by others who are egocentric (or greedy or crazy) enough to think of themselves as prophets or mystics or gods. From Buddha and Muhammad on down to L. Ron Hubbard and Tom Cruise.

I hate to see Buddha lumped in here.
Buddhism never compels belief. There is an implicit claim that those who are 'Buddhists' have gone through certain experiences and discovered certain truths.
But it's more like natural science (or should be, and often is) than like most religions that proffer dogma whose acceptance is required before you get both feet in the door.
Buddha definitely didn't think he was a god or prophet. So far from that, he actually tried, with I'm sure some success, to dissolve his own sense of self.
A mystic? Well, yes ... because the ultimate view of reality in Buddhism is mystical ... something apprehended suddenly (albeit, usually after a bit of preparation), in a direct way.
But maybe some truths are mystical.
And why is claiming to have mystic insights to be lumped in with claiming to be a prophet or god?
And the mystical truths of Buddhism (if truths they be) are always offered gingerly. If you say you understand them, they'll want some demonstration. There's no attempt at all to impose a belief system.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

What's the difference between being mystically insightful and being a prophet?

 

[the_reverend]

is not what i believe i just explained what buddism is really about .

the truth is that iam a not a buddhist yet. iam reading a lot a books
of buddism by qualify masters and are very interesting. i know that some buddhist not believe in rebirth and karma but i found this strange . also karma without multiple lives dont make sense because we cant see the law of couse and effect operating in the present lifetime manytimes

is like claiming to being a christian but not believing in god, jesus cruxifiction , resurrection also not believing that jesus is the messiah etc

you could ask why i dont consider myself a buddhist yet. precisely because iam not 100 % sure about if the karma and rebirth thing is real . i dont like blind faith i need some prove about things but iam open to many posibilities

what YOU believe Buddhism to be really about. obviously, there are sects and schools of thought that differ. i've already pointed out the ways in which Christians have similar differences in belief as far as the cosmology and hierarchy of the universe go. i don't see this as much different. now, personally, i DO believe in a form of reincarnation...but i don't see why it's so hard to accept that some Buddhists have considered the matter and don't believe in it.

you seem to have an attachment to the notion of reincarnation, which if you cling to it too tightly will impede your path. if it occurs, it does. if it doesn't, it does not. believe what you believe, follow your path and concern yourself less with other believing exactly what you believe. if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha.

Somehow I doubt any of the adherents to any of these ancient (or modern) religions felt that this was the "point" of their faith. They would more than likely be insulted by your reduction of their entire belief system. But anyway, playing along, why do people believe what they do and where do such beliefs spring from? How about an innate need to explain things that compels us to fabricate stories when we don't actually know something? Why are some of the stories similar? Simple lack of originality and creativity. Most of our religious predecessors stole from older stories, passed down by oral tradition. Those that came up with their own often used similar archetypes because people aren't as creative as they think they are. This fundamental need to understand and explain things makes most of us vulnerable to being duped by others who are egocentric (or greedy or crazy) enough to think of themselves as prophets or mystics or gods. From Buddha and Muhammad on down to L. Ron Hubbard and Tom Cruise.

except that unlike L. Ron Hubbard, no major prophet in history has profited off of their message. many were shunned, tortured and killed. so why persist in "duping" people if all it gets you is persecution and death?

my comment about the "point" could have been clearer...i meant the point of discussing faith and various beliefs, not the point of the individual faiths themselves. hope that clears that up.

So... the ancient Norse may have been on the right track... but I'm unenlightened? Yeah that makes sense. The Norse thought your concept of God was stupid, too. They're just not alive to tell you so, and so you don't have them to direct your passive aggression at. You, like many religious hypocrites, are trying to say that you live up to some ideal of being open minded about all things, even when you are implying that you are somehow more right than those who don't believe what you do. Just blindly believing in completely arbitrary made up stories is enlightened thinking, and being critical or skeptical of them is unenlightened? Sorry revered, but this is just another way of calling me stupid and condescending to someone who doesn't share your views. Being polite doesn't make you a more skilled debater. I also don't believe for one second that you actually believe in the literal truth of Norse mythology. Do your logical cartwheels all you want to try to make my position weaker, I'm not buying it.

how am i hypocritical? i'm not dismissing your beliefs or calling them dumb. i AM criticizing your attitudes towards faith and people of faith. i applaud skepticism and critical thought. i think it's an important element of true faith. i don't blindly believe in anything arbitrary. i constantly question my beliefs and my faith and struggle with the nature of God and the universe. so to have someone dismiss all beliefs simply on the basis that they ARE beliefs as "dumb" is rather insulting, yes. you can question and poke and prod all you want, but you don't have to act like a prick about it. saying "i don't believe in reincarnation. i've never seen any evidence to support it" is an important step away from "no, it's dumb and made up and you're dumb for believing in it."

honestly, i can understand a little reactionary douchebaggery towards Christians because of what utter bastards fundamentalists and televangelists act like, making the rest of us look bad...but what the hell did Buddhists ever do to you? lol

(and for the record, i never claimed to believe in the LITERAL truth of the Norse myths, any more than i've claimed to believe in the LITERAL truth of my own faiths. i said they were stories meant to reflect certain spiritual truths and values metaphorically and symbolically. so try reading ALL of the words i post before responding, thanks.)

What's the difference between being mystically insightful and being a prophet?

to my mind, very little. hell, i consider John Lennon and Bill Hicks to be modern day prophets, alongside Kahlil Gibran, Jack Kerouac, Thich Nhat Thanh and Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[B_tallbig]

what YOU believe Buddhism to be really about. obviously, there are sects and schools of thought that differ. i've already pointed out the ways in which Christians have similar differences in belief as far as the cosmology and hierarchy of the universe go. i don't see this as much different. now, personally, i DO believe in a form of reincarnation...but i don't see why it's so hard to accept that some Buddhists have considered the matter and don't believe in it.

you seem to have an attachment to the notion of reincarnation, which if you cling to it too tightly will impede your path. if it occurs, it does. if it doesn't, it does not. believe what you believe, follow your path and concern yourself less with other believing exactly what you believe. if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha.



except that unlike L. Ron Hubbard, no major prophet in history has profited off of their message. many were shunned, tortured and killed. so why persist in "duping" people if all it gets you is persecution and death?

my comment about the "point" could have been clearer...i meant the point of discussing faith and various beliefs, not the point of the individual faiths themselves. hope that clears that up.



how am i hypocritical? i'm not dismissing your beliefs or calling them dumb. i AM criticizing your attitudes towards faith and people of faith. i applaud skepticism and critical thought. i think it's an important element of true faith. i don't blindly believe in anything arbitrary. i constantly question my beliefs and my faith and struggle with the nature of God and the universe. so to have someone dismiss all beliefs simply on the basis that they ARE beliefs as "dumb" is rather insulting, yes. you can question and poke and prod all you want, but you don't have to act like a prick about it. saying "i don't believe in reincarnation. i've never seen any evidence to support it" is an important step away from "no, it's dumb and made up and you're dumb for believing in it."

honestly, i can understand a little reactionary douchebaggery towards Christians because of what utter bastards fundamentalists and televangelists act like, making the rest of us look bad...but what the hell did Buddhists ever do to you? lol

(and for the record, i never claimed to believe in the LITERAL truth of the Norse myths, any more than i've claimed to believe in the LITERAL truth of my own faiths. i said they were stories meant to reflect certain spiritual truths and values metaphorically and symbolically. so try reading ALL of the words i post before responding, thanks.)



to my mind, very little. hell, i consider John Lennon and Bill Hicks to be modern day prophets, alongside Kahlil Gibran, Jack Kerouac, Thich Nhat Thanh and Martin Luther King Jr.

i know what you mean but iam not have attachmnet to the idea of karma and rebirth i dont know if both things are true that why i dont consider myself a buddhist . i dont care what other people believe i just was explaining the 4 nobles truths

 

[the_reverend]

i know what you mean but iam not have attachmnet to the idea of karma and rebirth i dont know if both things are true that why i dont consider myself a buddhist . i dont care what other people believe i just was explaining the 4 nobles truths

right, but what i'm trying to clarify is that people can believe in and follow the four noble truths and the eightfold path without believing in reincarnation...just as people can follow the Ten Commandments and teachings of Christ without believing in a physical Heaven or Hell that you "go" to.

 

[BigDuder]

6 year olds with cancer. where is the karma in that?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

6 year olds with cancer. where is the karma in that?

Well, the belief in karma allows you to think that the six-year-old has done things in earlier lives that are balanced out by the cancer.
I don't believe that, but this is the way that karma allows people to think that it's only apparent that life is unfair -- that some seemingly bad people flourish, and some good people have rotten luck all their lives.

 

[Guy-jin]

This book actually does delve into fitting Buddhist dogma and mythology with factual science and the Dalai Lama goes to great lengths to explain precisely how adaptable Buddhism is to science, which is in contrast to fundamentalist Western religions, which are contrary to scientific findings. A very insightful read from perhaps the most preeminent Buddhist of our time (who also happens to be a very intelligent and educated individual).

 

[SereneBlue]

Well, the belief in karma allows you to think that the six-year-old has done things in earlier lives that are balanced out by the cancer.
I don't believe that, but this is the way that karma allows people to think that it's only apparent that life is unfair -- that some seemingly bad people flourish, and some good people have rotten luck all their lives.

Agreed. Which is why I said people's desire for Justice and Equity gave rise to Reincarnation to try to account for something like 6 year old cancer victims.

I don't like Reincarnation for several reasons but one is that it ends up blaming innocent victims for their misfortune. I would not want to see the disease of the Caste system in India spread elsewhere.