Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Just like Christians who stick to the idea that life on earth was created in six days; just like Muslims who stick to the sharia law (stoning and cutting off hands style); when they - instead of thinking for themselves - hide behind their scriptures' authority, are fundamentalists.
@seeker242 I think it's time to look up the word "faith". In the context of religion- It's not about adherence, it's about belief in the INTANGIBLE. In what you CAN'T see... what you have no "proof" of... in words you have only been TOLD are the 'true words' of a savior/sage/buddha/messiah, etc...
Here, householder friends, a Noble Disciple reflects thus: If someone were to commit adultery with my wife, that would neither be pleasing, nor agreeable to me. Similarly, if I were to commit adultery with another man's wife, that would also be illicit sex, & horny fornication, which would neither be pleasing, nor agreeable to that other man either....
And here, dear friends, is where any list of "sexual misconduct" runs straight into cultural norms. Sexual abuse is any sexual behavior that the culture decides is deviant. Period. Adultery in particular is not about the man, but all about the sanctity of the exclusive womb of the wife. Notice above, even Buddha defined adultery as someone messing around with the wife. He gives the example of your suffering if your wife messes around, and then attempts to link this to how that other husband feels if you mess with someone else's wife. Adultery, in other words, is for Buddha's culture and many other cultures out there, all about the husband's property called "wife" being violated. To Buddha, a man sleeping with a prostitute or unmarried woman is not adultery. Heck, a rich man can have concubines to go along with his wife. But let one of the male servants sleep with his wife, and heads will roll.
So sexual abuse is breaking the rules. Two men loving each other was and is sexual misconduct worthy of prison or death in many cultures, but that is no surprise to anyone. Ask any Tibetan monk if homosexual sex is misconduct. But in a few enlightened cultures now, we say if they're happy, it's all good. So is homosexual sex abuse or not?
And incest? That's came and went as misconduct over the centuries and cultures. Egyptians had no problem with it and the royal families were expected to marry in the family. Again, pretty much a matter of culture.
Not to mention, raping a slave was not sexual misconduct even in Buddha's time because masters owned and controlled every part of the slave.
In Buddha's time and even today, child brides are not unheard of. In those traditional cultures, they would argue the girl being young is not an automatic sexual abuse.
All this is why I love in Buddhism we leave the lists of "do nots" to other religions and treat people as thinking, moral beings capable of compassion. Misconduct is selfish conduct that causes suffering. You know what is and isn't right. If I messed around on my wife, it would cause her to suffer and break a vow I have given her. The fact that other couples have an open marriage doesn't concern me. The precepts are about my situation, not theirs.
6
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Hey, if it makes more sense to believe in other physical planes then far be it from me to tell you you'll burn in some hell for that dualistic thinking.
As for the sutra thumping fundie comments, all I did was agree that the label could be used.
If the O/P doesn't like that then he shouldn't pretend to know the unknowable and use fear mongering as a teaching aid.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
If there is rebirth it makes more sense to me that we are born back into this world.
We have enough hells right here without imagining more.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Especially in a case where a fundamentalist belief in hell is concerned.
But that's how the suttas seem to describe kamma, so are the suttas fundamentalist?
I suppose it depends on interpretation. Hells are real but are they really something other than states of mind or are they physical places other than the here and now?
What evidence can you provide that the here and now is anything other than a projection of your mind? Is there someone else in there with you who can confirm that it's not?
Especially in a case where a fundamentalist belief in hell is concerned.
But that's how the suttas seem to describe kamma, so are the suttas fundamentalist?
I suppose it depends on interpretation. Hells are real but are they really something other than states of mind or are they physical places other than the here and now?
Especially in a case where a fundamentalist belief in hell is concerned.
But that's how the suttas seem to describe kamma, so are the suttas fundamentalist?
I suppose it depends on interpretation. Hells are real but are they really something other than states of mind or are they physical places other than the here and now?
What evidence can you provide that the here and now is anything other than a projection of your mind? Is there someone else in there with you who can confirm that it's not?
Especially in a case where a fundamentalist belief in hell is concerned.
But that's how the suttas seem to describe kamma, so are the suttas fundamentalist?
I suppose it depends on interpretation. Hells are real but are they really something other than states of mind or are they physical places other than the here and now?
The psychological interpretation of the realms has become popular, but I've read the suttas extensively and haven't come across anything which supports this idea. The suttas consistently describe kamma in terms of beings reborn in different realms according to their actions. My point is that somebody who takes the suttas at face value or favours a traditional interpretation isn't automatically a "fundamentalist" or a "sutta thumper" . There is really no need for this dismissive and patronising language.
what makes the "psychological" version of hell any more valid then a real physical place? Non of it can be proven or disproven however just because someone has a negative aversion to the christian concept of a physical hell doesn't mean it doesn't necessarily exist. So the arrogance of "well of course it's psychological, you'd have to be a silly person to believe that" comes into being..... judgements.
my personal belief on the matter? I'm agnostic on all such things, from god to rebirth. The whole debate is a waste of time, it's one of the many imponderables that gets you nowhere when we should be practicing .
I don't know about you lot but after reading this post it feels like I've let my monkey mind go on a riot - I'm tied up in conceptual knots - time to unknot… Oh yes, let's bring my mind home! Breath in... Breath out….
5
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I don't know about you lot but after reading this post it feels like I've let my monkey mind go on a riot - I'm tied up in conceptual knots - time to unknot… Oh yes, let's bring my mind home! Breath in... Breath out….
Yep. Trying to cram reality into boxes does that to me, also. Deep thoughts before my third cup of coffee gives me headaches.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Hey, if it makes more sense to believe in other physical planes then far be it from me to tell you you'll burn in some hell for that dualistic thinking.
As for the sutra thumping fundie comments, all I did was agree that the label could be used.
If the O/P doesn't like that then he shouldn't pretend to know the unknowable and use fear mongering as a teaching aid.
Geez, I'm sorry about the last paragraph there... If you could feel my tone you'd know I was making light and not upset or anything. It was out of line but in all honesty, I was just teasing fear. Its just something I do.
But holy mackerel guys and gals... I asked a simple question that nobody can answer without saying something that amounts to "Because Buddha said so".
We know that causes have effects and affect the environment and so-called "other beings". It would then make sense that rebirth would follow causation and karma if it indeed happens. So sure, straying from a noble existence could beget unfortunate circumstance but (and this is the only point and question I'm asking the O/P) how would not believing in rebirth possibly cause an unfavorable rebirth?
Any rebirth where one can practice the dharma is fortunate if you ask me.
I agree with a lot of your post but sometimes wasting time is fun and educational.
Some enjoy video games and others enjoy pondering imponderables.
Ahaha
Ive done both extensively, and if i had to choose between these two forms of escape, ive found video games to be far less frustrating and more conducive to sanity. :-P
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I agree with a lot of your post but sometimes wasting time is fun and educational.
Some enjoy video games and others enjoy pondering imponderables.
Ahaha
Ive done both extensively, and if i had to choose between these two forms of escape, ive found video games to be far less frustrating and more conducive to sanity. :-P
That's why I don't have faith in my beliefs. It keeps the wonder alive and the dogma at bay.
But holy mackerel guys and gals... I asked a simple question that nobody can answer without saying something that amounts to "Because Buddha said so".
Did you ever stop to consider that "Because the Buddha said so." just might be the correct answer to your question and the real problem is your stubborn refusal to believe it?
Maybe you should start taking some responsibility for your own answers rather than leaning on those you hold in contempt.
Any rebirth where one can practice the dharma is fortunate if you ask me.
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
^^^ stop flaming the fires, already. I'm so glad (<-- that's sarcasm) some of you find this kind of nitpicking, & deflective 'argument' amusing or provocative. It's not. It's frustrating, but worse- It's petty.
People voiced their opinions, Fine. You disagree? Fine.
Why not just explain WHY you disagree - in your OWN words- and stop hijacking other people's words and twisting them into nonsense (or pretending you 'don't understand' basic English) in order to take the original points and ideas of the entire thread down a whole different road? Stop showboating already.
None of it can be proven or disproven however just because someone has a negative aversion to the christian concept of a physical hell doesn't mean it doesn't necessarily exist. So the arrogance of "well of course it's psychological, you'd have to be a silly person to believe that" comes into being..... judgements.
Good point. And I do sense a strong element of aversion with some people, perhaps incorrectly equating Abrahamic ideas of hell with the workings of kamma in Buddhism?
By empirical I did not mean that there was some kind of subjective proof (although maybe for some).
I meant that believing in karma has benefits in the here and now. Of course you can be moral without karma, but actual belief in karma makes you very concerned with escaping samsara.
Fear of karma is what made Milarepa practice like crazy and he became a Buddha.
Just like Christians who stick to the idea that life on earth was created in six days; just like Muslims who stick to the sharia law (stoning and cutting off hands style); when they - instead of thinking for themselves - hide behind their scriptures' authority, are fundamentalists.
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
And you believe that merely because someone told you that it's true. :-/
Boy howdy, you sure hit that nail on the head.
:screwy:
Countless species in the universe, yet only us humans can practice the Dharma. Talk about a self-centered myopic vantage point.
But someone, another human, told you it's true, so it must be true!!
Firstly humans are not the only beings who can practice dhamma, since you can be a once returner in the heaven realms and finish up by becoming awake there. It is just life most conducive to dhamma practice.
As far as the Universe goes, the buddha talked about beings and buddhas in other world systems. If he was talking to a group of humans, i doubt he would of said "the beings from omacron perseai 8 have the best chance.
Any sentient being that has the same cognitive and contemplative abilities as humans should be equally able to practice dhamma, but thats more of a personal opinion lol.
When we fail to keep our third precept to commit adultery, we also violate the precepts do not steal and do not lie. And if someone gets killed because of this then we are also liable to the first precept of do not take a life.
A person who can't keep the basic precepts won't be reborn human. If these same people did a lot of good deeds in their lives but disregard the basic precepts, as a rule of Karma ... I just guess ... to balance out good deeds and bad behaviours ... these people can be reborn dogs of very rich people. These dogs are pampered beyond belief but they are still dogs.
I know, you will say this is superticious and you don't believe in samsara. But samsara is at the core of Buddhism! So are we the type of just fun and partying buddhists who discard the precepts and who don't believe in samsara?
@Cinorjer, your long post above about sexual abuse and culture is mostly excellent and right on target.
The place I will beg to differ a bit with this topic as it has come up over the past few days is that inbreeding causes genetic abnormalities. You can read a very good couple of paragraphs about this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest .
And, back in the mid-70s, when I first began teaching I kept having students with the same last name who looked racially "odd" and usually seemed to have some health issues, along with a strange likelihood of various degrees of mental retardation. I hate to say it, but in terms of looks, they sort of looked like some of the characters in the film "The Omega Man" with Charlton Heston. I happened to mention it one day to a colleague, and he said, "Vince, some school holiday, when you have nothing to do, go down to Library Of Congress and do a little research on the ------- family. You'll learn a lot." This was in the days before internet access, so I did. Wow. This particular family was suffering from extensive inbreeding back through their history as slaves and post-slaves, hence the genetic problems. To this day, their family is studied and you can find out a lot about them on the internet now.
My point here is that, at least in terms of incest, it's more than just a social taboo. There is real science behind it.
Huge mistake to view precepts just a cultural thing, IMO.
I started to write a post agreeing with this, and as I wrote it I found that I was actually disagreeing with it. Hmmmm.
On the one hand, many, if not most, cultures have a set of rules that are similar in varying degrees to the Precepts. So that would argue that the Precepts are a "cultural thing".
Or, are they more than that? And I would suggest they are. That they get down to what I'll call the basic contract between human beings...which I see as more than just a "cultural thing".
But holy mackerel guys and gals... I asked a simple question that nobody can answer without saying something that amounts to "Because Buddha said so".
Did you ever stop to consider that "Because the Buddha said so." just might be the correct answer to your question and the real problem is your stubborn refusal to believe it?
Maybe you should start taking some responsibility for your own answers rather than leaning on those you hold in contempt.
Any rebirth where one can practice the dharma is fortunate if you ask me.
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
The problem with "Because the Buddha said so" is that it implies [and here we go back to it again] blind faith that because the Buddha was significantly more than a human being (as opposed to some sort of god) that we should automatically believe every word he supposedly ever spoke because he was infallible.
First, in my view there is no infallibility except from a god/God. And I've always been taught that Buddha is not a god/God. So that doesn't work for me.
Second, I always reject blind faith.
And this fits right in with my decision to be a secular Buddhist.
So when I look at the teachings of Buddha, I give him special status as a person who has demonstrated having an unusual degree of wisdom. I put him in a revered group of a handful of men who, when they speak, should be listened to because their batting record for advice on how to live is at or near the top of the pinnacle of human wisdom.
None of it can be proven or disproven however just because someone has a negative aversion to the christian concept of a physical hell doesn't mean it doesn't necessarily exist. So the arrogance of "well of course it's psychological, you'd have to be a silly person to believe that" comes into being..... judgements.
Good point. And I do sense a strong element of aversion with some people, perhaps incorrectly equating Abrahamic ideas of hell with the workings of kamma in Buddhism?
If you do much exploring in Thailand, you will find Buddhist that date to long before Christianity came to SE Asia that have murals depicting a hell very much like many Christian depictions of hell.
Just like Christians who stick to the idea that life on earth was created in six days; just like Muslims who stick to the sharia law (stoning and cutting off hands style); when they - instead of thinking for themselves - hide behind their scriptures' authority, are fundamentalists.
Sometimes, I think that trees have it figured out. They are alive, like us, but otherwise so very unlike us.
The breeze blows, they sway. The sun shines, they bask. The season changes, they change with it. The human chops them down, they fall.
When is that last time you saw trees arguing with each other? Debating which leaf shape is most effective for photosynthesis or which fruit is most effective for seed dispersion?
Sometimes, I think that trees have it figured out. They are alive, like us, but otherwise so very unlike us.
The breeze blows, they sway. The sun shines, they bask. The season changes, they change with it. The human chops them down, they fall.
When is that last time you saw trees arguing with each other? Debating which leaf shape is most effective for photosynthesis or which fruit is most effective for seed dispersion?
Maybe trees are buddhas.
All true. But then again, trees can do virtually nothing about their existence.
Especially in a case where a fundamentalist belief in hell is concerned.
But that's how the suttas seem to describe kamma, so are the suttas fundamentalist?
I suppose it depends on interpretation. Hells are real but are they really something other than states of mind or are they physical places other than the here and now?
What evidence can you provide that the here and now is anything other than a projection of your mind? Is there someone else in there with you who can confirm that it's not?
That view is call Nihilism. You could check it out on the net. mtgby
Huge mistake to view precepts just a cultural thing, IMO.
I started to write a post agreeing with this, and as I wrote it I found that I was actually disagreeing with it. Hmmmm.
On the one hand, many, if not most, cultures have a set of rules that are similar in varying degrees to the Precepts. So that would argue that the Precepts are a "cultural thing".
Or, are they more than that? And I would suggest they are. That they get down to what I'll call the basic contract between human beings...which I see as more than just a "cultural thing".
Hmm, yes that's interesting! I would agree with Cinorjer, but only up to a certain point. For example. Two homosexual men who love each other. Viewing this as a broken precept I think could easily be considered a cultural thing. No one is caused harm by this, at least not any more than a man and a woman having sex for pleasure.
However, to say it's not a precepts violation to rape your slaves, simply because it's legal, socially acceptable and everyone does it, goes way too far! That actually does cause harm. The idea that sexual abuse is any sexual behavior that the culture decides is deviant, removes the whole ethical foundation of the precepts and puts it on the back of a bunch of deluded people instead of wise people, which is where it should be.
:om:
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
And you believe that merely because someone told you that it's true. :-/
Boy howdy, you sure hit that nail on the head.
:screwy:
Countless species in the universe, yet only us humans can practice the Dharma. Talk about a self-centered myopic vantage point.
But someone, another human, told you it's true, so it must be true!!
Firstly humans are not the only beings who can practice dhamma, since you can be a once returner in the heaven realms and finish up by becoming awake there. It is just life most conducive to dhamma practice.
As far as the Universe goes, the buddha talked about beings and buddhas in other world systems. If he was talking to a group of humans, i doubt he would of said "the beings from omacron perseai 8 have the best chance.
Any sentient being that has the same cognitive and contemplative abilities as humans should be equally able to practice dhamma, but thats more of a personal opinion lol.
Other world systems sound to me like other solar systems. If there is other life in the universe then it makes sense. But it wouldn't qualify as a different plane of existence. Other solar systems are still right here and right now.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
But holy mackerel guys and gals... I asked a simple question that nobody can answer without saying something that amounts to "Because Buddha said so".
Did you ever stop to consider that "Because the Buddha said so." just might be the correct answer to your question and the real problem is your stubborn refusal to believe it?
Maybe you should start taking some responsibility for your own answers rather than leaning on those you hold in contempt.
Any rebirth where one can practice the dharma is fortunate if you ask me.
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
And you believe that merely because someone told you that it's true. :-/
It's true because it is true. Any other birth you can imagine is just that. imaginary. What is to be gained from trying to establish whether there are other forms you might take in which you could be enlightened? At that point you have wandered away from the here and now into dreamland. You can practice now which is a fact.
So it needs to be deeper for you, eh Vince? Let me consult with my copy of the Mulamadhyamakakarika. I'll see if I can come up with some thing to satisfy your intellect.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
And you believe that merely because someone told you that it's true. :-/
It's true because it is true. Any other birth you can imagine is just that. imaginary. What is to be gained from trying to establish whether there are other forms you might take in which you could be enlightened? At that point you have wandered away from the here and now into dreamland. You can practice now which is a fact.
That's kinda my point with these other planes of existence. Any place other than here is imaginary. Imho
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Cry not for the trees. They don't need to practice the dharma for they live it perfectly.
There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
And you believe that merely because someone told you that it's true. :-/
It's true because it is true. Any other birth you can imagine is just that. imaginary. What is to be gained from trying to establish whether there are other forms you might take in which you could be enlightened? At that point you have wandered away from the here and now into dreamland. You can practice now which is a fact.
That's kinda my point with these other planes of existence. Any place other than here is imaginary. Imho
I'm glad we agree. There are many creatures that share our "plane of existence" that have such a different view in terms of what they sense and how, that I can easily see how they might inhabit a different realm altogether. Deep water species are one example. Or insects who spend their lives underground or in a decaying log. Again, not a very deep idea, (sorry vinlyn). I just don't see why we need to look for other planes of existence when there are so many different beings inhabiting different realms that we can see right here and now. Including you and me.
So it needs to be deeper for you, eh Vince? Let me consult with my copy of the Mulamadhyamakakarika. I'll see if I can come up with some thing to satisfy your intellect.
Robot, any member of any religion can say (and do) that their religion or scriptures or beliefs are true because they are true. It means nothing. Anyone can say it about what they believe. I've heard Catholics say it, Protestants say it, Jews say it, evangelicals say it.
So it needs to be deeper for you, eh Vince? Let me consult with my copy of the Mulamadhyamakakarika. I'll see if I can come up with some thing to satisfy your intellect.
Robot, any member of any religion can say (and do) that their religion or scriptures or beliefs are true because they are true. It means nothing. Anyone can say it about what they believe. I've heard Catholics say it, Protestants say it, Jews say it, evangelicals say it.
That's fine. Now tell us about the other births that you can have where you might practice the Dharma . Are you living any of them now? If not then this birth is the only one in which you can practice the Dharma. True or not?
Comments
commit adultery with my wife, that would neither be pleasing, nor agreeable to me.
Similarly, if I were to commit adultery with another man's wife, that would also
be illicit sex, & horny fornication, which would neither be pleasing, nor agreeable
to that other man either....
And here, dear friends, is where any list of "sexual misconduct" runs straight into cultural norms. Sexual abuse is any sexual behavior that the culture decides is deviant. Period. Adultery in particular is not about the man, but all about the sanctity of the exclusive womb of the wife. Notice above, even Buddha defined adultery as someone messing around with the wife. He gives the example of your suffering if your wife messes around, and then attempts to link this to how that other husband feels if you mess with someone else's wife. Adultery, in other words, is for Buddha's culture and many other cultures out there, all about the husband's property called "wife" being violated. To Buddha, a man sleeping with a prostitute or unmarried woman is not adultery. Heck, a rich man can have concubines to go along with his wife. But let one of the male servants sleep with his wife, and heads will roll.
So sexual abuse is breaking the rules. Two men loving each other was and is sexual misconduct worthy of prison or death in many cultures, but that is no surprise to anyone. Ask any Tibetan monk if homosexual sex is misconduct. But in a few enlightened cultures now, we say if they're happy, it's all good. So is homosexual sex abuse or not?
And incest? That's came and went as misconduct over the centuries and cultures. Egyptians had no problem with it and the royal families were expected to marry in the family. Again, pretty much a matter of culture.
Not to mention, raping a slave was not sexual misconduct even in Buddha's time because masters owned and controlled every part of the slave.
In Buddha's time and even today, child brides are not unheard of. In those traditional cultures, they would argue the girl being young is not an automatic sexual abuse.
All this is why I love in Buddhism we leave the lists of "do nots" to other religions and treat people as thinking, moral beings capable of compassion. Misconduct is selfish conduct that causes suffering. You know what is and isn't right. If I messed around on my wife, it would cause her to suffer and break a vow I have given her. The fact that other couples have an open marriage doesn't concern me. The precepts are about my situation, not theirs.
Hey, if it makes more sense to believe in other physical planes then far be it from me to tell you you'll burn in some hell for that dualistic thinking.
As for the sutra thumping fundie comments, all I did was agree that the label could be used.
If the O/P doesn't like that then he shouldn't pretend to know the unknowable and use fear mongering as a teaching aid.
We have enough hells right here without imagining more.
my personal belief on the matter? I'm agnostic on all such things, from god to rebirth. The whole debate is a waste of time, it's one of the many imponderables that gets you nowhere when we should be practicing
I agree with a lot of your post but sometimes wasting time is fun and educational.
Some enjoy video games and others enjoy pondering imponderables.
But holy mackerel guys and gals... I asked a simple question that nobody can answer without saying something that amounts to "Because Buddha said so".
We know that causes have effects and affect the environment and so-called "other beings". It would then make sense that rebirth would follow causation and karma if it indeed happens. So sure, straying from a noble existence could beget unfortunate circumstance but (and this is the only point and question I'm asking the O/P) how would not believing in rebirth possibly cause an unfavorable rebirth?
Any rebirth where one can practice the dharma is fortunate if you ask me.
Ive done both extensively, and if i had to choose between these two forms of escape, ive found video games to be far less frustrating and more conducive to sanity. :-P
Maybe you should start taking some responsibility for your own answers rather than leaning on those you hold in contempt. There's just one kind of birth where you can practice the Dharma. Just one, and you've got it.
I'm so glad (<-- that's sarcasm) some of you find this kind of nitpicking, & deflective 'argument' amusing or provocative. It's not. It's frustrating, but worse- It's petty.
People voiced their opinions, Fine. You disagree? Fine.
Why not just explain WHY you disagree - in your OWN words- and stop hijacking other people's words and twisting them into nonsense (or pretending you 'don't understand' basic English) in order to take the original points and ideas of the entire thread down a whole different road?
Stop showboating already.
I meant that believing in karma has benefits in the here and now. Of course you can be moral without karma, but actual belief in karma makes you very concerned with escaping samsara.
Fear of karma is what made Milarepa practice like crazy and he became a Buddha.
:screwy:
But someone, another human, told you it's true, so it must be true!!
As far as the Universe goes, the buddha talked about beings and buddhas in other world systems. If he was talking to a group of humans, i doubt he would of said "the beings from omacron perseai 8 have the best chance.
Any sentient being that has the same cognitive and contemplative abilities as humans should be equally able to practice dhamma, but thats more of a personal opinion lol.
A person who can't keep the basic precepts won't be reborn human. If these same people did a lot of good deeds in their lives but disregard the basic precepts, as a rule of Karma ... I just guess ... to balance out good deeds and bad behaviours ... these people can be reborn dogs of very rich people. These dogs are pampered beyond belief but they are still dogs.
I know, you will say this is superticious and you don't believe in samsara. But samsara is at the core of Buddhism! So are we the type of just fun and partying buddhists who discard the precepts and who don't believe in samsara?
The place I will beg to differ a bit with this topic as it has come up over the past few days is that inbreeding causes genetic abnormalities. You can read a very good couple of paragraphs about this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest .
There's an ironic issue about inbreeding and Charles Darwin, which you can read about here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270760/How-Charles-Darwins-family-paid-price-inbreeding.html
And, back in the mid-70s, when I first began teaching I kept having students with the same last name who looked racially "odd" and usually seemed to have some health issues, along with a strange likelihood of various degrees of mental retardation. I hate to say it, but in terms of looks, they sort of looked like some of the characters in the film "The Omega Man" with Charlton Heston. I happened to mention it one day to a colleague, and he said, "Vince, some school holiday, when you have nothing to do, go down to Library Of Congress and do a little research on the ------- family. You'll learn a lot." This was in the days before internet access, so I did. Wow. This particular family was suffering from extensive inbreeding back through their history as slaves and post-slaves, hence the genetic problems. To this day, their family is studied and you can find out a lot about them on the internet now.
My point here is that, at least in terms of incest, it's more than just a social taboo. There is real science behind it.
On the one hand, many, if not most, cultures have a set of rules that are similar in varying degrees to the Precepts. So that would argue that the Precepts are a "cultural thing".
Or, are they more than that? And I would suggest they are. That they get down to what I'll call the basic contract between human beings...which I see as more than just a "cultural thing".
The problem with "Because the Buddha said so" is that it implies [and here we go back to it again] blind faith that because the Buddha was significantly more than a human being (as opposed to some sort of god) that we should automatically believe every word he supposedly ever spoke because he was infallible.
First, in my view there is no infallibility except from a god/God. And I've always been taught that Buddha is not a god/God. So that doesn't work for me.
Second, I always reject blind faith.
And this fits right in with my decision to be a secular Buddhist.
So when I look at the teachings of Buddha, I give him special status as a person who has demonstrated having an unusual degree of wisdom. I put him in a revered group of a handful of men who, when they speak, should be listened to because their batting record for advice on how to live is at or near the top of the pinnacle of human wisdom.
The breeze blows, they sway. The sun shines, they bask. The season changes, they change with it. The human chops them down, they fall.
When is that last time you saw trees arguing with each other? Debating which leaf shape is most effective for photosynthesis or which fruit is most effective for seed dispersion?
Maybe trees are buddhas.
However, to say it's not a precepts violation to rape your slaves, simply because it's legal, socially acceptable and everyone does it, goes way too far! That actually does cause harm. The idea that sexual abuse is any sexual behavior that the culture decides is deviant, removes the whole ethical foundation of the precepts and puts it on the back of a bunch of deluded people instead of wise people, which is where it should be.
:om:
Oh please... Do get a grip.
Any other birth you can imagine is just that. imaginary.
What is to be gained from trying to establish whether there are other forms you might take in which you could be enlightened? At that point you have wandered away from the here and now into dreamland.
You can practice now which is a fact.
That's deep. So deep.
There are many creatures that share our "plane of existence" that have such a different view in terms of what they sense and how, that I can easily see how they might inhabit a different realm altogether. Deep water species are one example. Or insects who spend their lives underground or in a decaying log.
Again, not a very deep idea, (sorry vinlyn). I just don't see why we need to look for other planes of existence when there are so many different beings inhabiting different realms that we can see right here and now. Including you and me.
Now tell us about the other births that you can have where you might practice the Dharma .
Are you living any of them now? If not then this birth is the only one in which you can practice the Dharma.
True or not?
I am critiquing a statement that, ""It's true because it is true."