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.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
This is what Carl Sagan said once:
“I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god.”
Anne Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow said:
“When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . . That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it’s much more meaningful. . . . The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.”
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited November 2014
Sorry, you quoted before I edited but he was Agnostic by definition.
He didn't pretend to have an inside scoop either way.
Whatever label, in the words of Anne Druyan, his wife, Carl Sagan was "a non-believer."
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited November 2014
In his, he was not an Atheist but agnostic.
In 1996 he said in an interview with Tom Head "Conversations with Carl" that "I'm agnostic"
From the horses mouth.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@SpinyNorman said:
One person's BS is another person's wisdom, so good luck with that.
>
Thank you most kindly, but after nearly 10 years' worth of Moderating experience, trust me - I can spot it a mile off. Particularly when others mention it too. My radar's pretty good, I think you'll find....
Whatever the label for Carl Sagan, one of the most brilliant minds of our generation did not need to subscribe to a theistic point of view in order to explain the origin of the universe.
And that very same fact did nothing to deter his unflinching curiosity and awe at the magnificence of the universe.
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
I'd like to suggest to you all who may not have read this book by Thick Nhat Hanh: Old Path White Clouds, Walking in the Footsteps of the Buddha, which I've barely begun reading, but it hooked me right away with its charm and heart-opening style. It's about 600 pages long, and I'm on 113, about to start chapter 17.
I thought it would be applicable to this thread, given DhammaDragon's comment to Zenguitar: "I'd say you need to read a bit more about Buddhism because it is not Buddhism that fails to provide you with answers."
I can't even describe the feeling in my heart when reading pretty much every word about the story of Buddha's life.
@DhammaDragon said:
And honestly, I am curious to see how a theistic religion like Christianity provides you with satisfactory answers to your questions about origins and endings and how exactly they back up their theories.
Christianity and theism do not provide me with any satisfactory answers at all. When did I say they do, @dhammadragon? I was just asking if Buddhism is maybe not complete because it doesn't even try to answer some of these ultimate questions.
Maybe it is true that I should learn more about Buddhism. Who here would not benefit from that? I would add that perhaps some other people around here should read more about religions and philosophies which are not theistic and yet do address ultimate issues in ways that Buddhism does not. Then at least one could make an informed choice to be Buddhist.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@zenguitar said:Christianity and theism do not provide me with any satisfactory answers at all. When did I say they do, @dhammadragon? I was just asking if Buddhism is maybe not complete because it doesn't even try to answer some of these ultimate questions.
>
It's not up to Buddhism to 'even try to answer some of these "ultimate" questions.'
It's up to you to find your own answers, by studying and following Buddhism. In time, the answers come, even if they merely consist of "yeah....? So what?"
Maybe it is true that I should learn more about Buddhism. Who here would not benefit from that?
>
We all do. But few of us ever ask the questions you do...
I would add that perhaps some other people around here should read more about religions and philosophies which are not theistic and yet do address ultimate issues in ways that Buddhism does not.
>
First of all, an awful lot of us have COME from those religions, having left them behind as lacking something we found more freely in Buddhism.
Secondly, could you give me an example or two of what 'ultimate issues' these Religions DO address, to any satisfactory degree, providing you with the answers you seek?
I'm damned if I found anything in Roman Catholicism which ticked even half the boxes, at times. And I was a practising catholic, born, bred and schooled, for nigh-on 40 years....
Then at least one could make an informed choice to be Buddhist.
>
I'm tempted to treat that patronising remark with the contempt it deserves, but I will make allowances for your back having being got up....
It is for the very reason that most of us - if not all of us - MADE those 'informed choices' that we are adhering to a Buddhist calling.
Buddhism is about choice, all the way down the line. There are no directives or commandments. Everything is up to us, to discern, decide and choose.
We have all chosen Buddhism, precisely because we knew we had other choices.
@zenguitar said:
Maybe it is true that I should learn more about Buddhism. Who here would not benefit from that? I would add that perhaps some other people around here should read more about religions and philosophies which are not theistic and yet do address ultimate issues in ways that Buddhism does not. Then at least one could make an informed choice to be Buddhist.
I grew up in a Catholic household, with a father who received a Jesuit education, and spent twelve years in a Catholic school.
When I was ten, I discovered Confucianism (not a religion, but an interesting ethical philosophy) and Taoism, which I still admire to this day.
At eleven a friend of mine introduced me to Theosophy.
By fourteen, I had bought my first rare books of Vedanta Philosophy.
Then came Western Philosophy at school and college.
At some point from there, I knew and chose Buddhism as my one and all doctrine for life.
I blew 44 candles last week, so I've been treading this path for quite a while and still find a lot to learn.
I'd say my choice was über- informed, and up until now, I have found not one existential misgiving that has not been addressed by Buddhism.
We have to know where to look.
And never stop learning.
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
edited November 2014
@Toraldris said:
I second what lobster said. On its own merits and by its own standards, the Dharma is complete in addressing suffering and the cessation of suffering. However if we're judging it like other religions and expecting it to give us metaphysical sureties, we're going to find it lacking. The problem isn't in Buddhism, it's in our expectations of Buddhism.
Hear hear.
It's not so much that I believe the Buddha's message is uniquely all-encompassing because it is my personal religion. It's not a bias I have. It's that it doesn't matter if the Buddha never addressed How It All Began, where we are going or what the purpose of it all is. The older I get, the less I see how KNOWING any of this for sure is going to make any difference!
That said I really love learning about cosmology, what the Large Hadron Collider has recently discovered about the quantum universe; what the most recent discoveries are in neuroscience and neuroplasticity; the latest (and appalling) information on how we are fouling our nest and turning our planet into a hot house, the psychology of parrots, the fascinating interface of body and mind that seems to say any differences therein are illusions . . . you get my drift. And then I breathe and check in with all my parts for a while.
Think of how toddlers explore their world if allowed to do so. We naturally explore our lives and bodies and world. Did the Buddha need to address this specifically for Buddhism to be 'complete'? You can see how the question itself makes you go sideways into nonsense and nowhere .
Go for it, go where your attention takes you. If you have a voice in your head critisizing you for where you go, question THAT. So much of this practice is discovering how we limit our own vision, cloud it up with assumptions that go unquestioned.
@Hamsaka said:
So much of this practice is discovering how we limit our own vision, cloud it up with assumptions that go unquestioned.
Important thing is not to wrongly assume that it is Buddhism that narrows our field of vision or the scope of our curiosity, nor calls for assumptions to go unquestioned.
First, my apologies for remarks earlier that seemed a bit patronizing. Those remarks were actually directed toward one member of the forum who seems to think I am a shill for Christianity, but now I realize those remarks shouldn't have been directed at anyone.
Second, I have stumbled upon a solution to this singular dilemma of mine which should be as obvious as it is elegant: syncretism. In Japan, most people are both Buddhist and Shinto, although the two religions have little in common. Similar admixtures of religion occur in other east Asian societies. Following the same paradigm, perhaps I will retain certain techniques of Buddhism to deal with suffering, while also adopting some other religion/philosophy (to be determined--but not Shinto or Christianity) to deal with questions of ultimate meaning.
Sorry to have disturbed you with my existential agonizing. Please carry on as usual.
@zenguitar said:
First, my apologies for remarks earlier that seemed a bit patronizing. Those remarks were actually directed toward one member of the forum who seems to think I am a shill for Christianity, but now I realize those remarks shouldn't have been directed at anyone.
Second, I have stumbled upon a solution to this singular dilemma of mine which should be as obvious as it is elegant: syncretism. In Japan, most people are both Buddhist and Shinto, although the two religions have little in common. Similar admixtures of religion occur in other east Asian societies. Following the same paradigm, perhaps I will retain certain techniques of Buddhism to deal with suffering, while also adopting some other religion/philosophy (to be determined--but not Shinto or Christianity) to deal with questions of ultimate meaning.
Sorry to have disturbed you with my existential agonizing. Please carry on as usual.
Yup. Been doing that for a while. Welcome.
Goes along with my fairly recent realization that with most things in life it isn't one OR the other.
I thank you for your existential agonizing because it serves to clear up misconceptions.
We learn by asking.
And we have a lot to learn. It never ends.
Re the original question:
"I know I'm not supposed to think about this, but does anyone else wonder why the universe seems to follow regular (albeit complex) mathematical laws?"
Why are you "not to think about this"? Did someone, say a Buddhist teacher, tell you to not do cosmology or theoretical physics? Who would that be? And how are you accountable to such a person for that statement? What would be their reasoning? I think you're a free agent that way.
I once heard on video a quote by Stephen Hawking. He said basically, point blank, that his thinking was closest to Buddhist thinking and philosophy. In English. On the record. He is a world class cosmologist and theoretical physicist.
Why would the universe not follow complex mathematical laws?
Why would Buddhism be against mathematics, theoretical physics, or cosmology?
You live I suppose in one of the free countries of the West.
Why would there be problem with your thinking about this subject or asking about this in one of the free countries?
I simply fail to see what obstacle is blocking you on the existential level.
Sounds like a real non-issue.
I am not challenging you. I just don't see where there is an issue to be addressed.
Buddhism is complete with regards to its goal, the end of suffering. With regards to things that don't pertain to the goal, then yea, I would say it's incomplete.
However, saying Buddhism is incomplete has to take the final goal into account because that it what defines completeness to begin with. Saying Buddhism is incomplete because it does not explain the origin of the universe, etc. is almost like saying a baseball coach's instruction is incomplete on how to play golf! Which would make perfect sense since he is not even a golf coach to begin with!
@DhammaDragon said:
I thank you for your existential agonizing because it serves to clear up misconceptions.
We learn by asking.
And we have a lot to learn. It never ends.
Yes, thank you all for listening to me think out loud.
This is why I said it is discouraged to think about these things. It seems to be built into Buddhism itself...which I found a little disturbing.
Edit: (I am adding this paragraph so I don't start up yet another round of feisty debate) But I understand now why the Buddha did this. His goal was to put an end to suffering, not to answer these ultimate questions. In order to solve a problem, you have to define its scope first. Very practical.
@seeker242 said:
Buddhism is complete with regards to its goal, the end of suffering. With regards to things that don't pertain to the goal, then yea, I would say it's incomplete.
However, saying Buddhism is incomplete has to take the final goal into account because that it what defines completeness to begin with. Saying Buddhism is incomplete because it does not explain the origin of the universe, etc. is almost like saying a baseball coach's instruction is incomplete on how to play golf! Which would make perfect sense since he is not even a golf coach to begin with!
Buddhism is as vast as the cultures, schools, lands and bibliography it encompasses.
It is not Buddhism that is incomplete.
It is our limited knowledge that is incomplete.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@federica said:
Damn.
And there was I, convinced I knew it all.
Actually, that is what happens at every break through, to everyone. Until you realize what is happening then you get to work sooner on the next break through.
@zenguitar said:
I know I'm not supposed to think about this, but does anyone else wonder why the universe seems to follow regular (albeit complex) mathematical laws? Or where the whole shebang (the universe, that is) came from?
I'm asking because I think it is not completely absurd to believe that our ultimate purpose may be tied up with these laws and with whatever entity generated this underlying order (if there is such an entity). But ultimate origins and ends are never mentioned in Buddhism; in fact, thinking about these things is discouraged. The attitude is more like "Don't worry your pretty little head about it, just focus on your breathing."
Does anyone else think this attitude is a little bit insulting to one's intelligence?
Note that I'm not trying to sell theism here, I'm just wondering what people think...
“You are a function of what the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is a function of what the whole ocean is doing.”
― Alan W. Watts
“Paradoxical as it may seem, the purposeful life has no content, no point. It hurries on and on, and misses everything. Not hurrying, the purposeless life misses nothing, for it is only when there is no goal and no rush that the human senses are fully open to receive the world.”
― Alan W. Watts
“Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes.”
― Alan W. Watts
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Greg911 said: Actually, that is what happens at every break through, to everyone. Until you realize what is happening then you get to work sooner on the next break through.
Any chance you could lighten up and show some humour at all....? :persevere:
You really don't want the laughing Buddha do you? If so go sit at the feet of a teacher. I call it sun bathing.
I have decided not just to fit in. lack of skillfulness aside it seems the best way. If I see I am doing any real harm I will stop of course.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Greg911 said:
You really don't want the laughing Buddha do you?
>
no, I just think you should lighten up a bit. Jeesh, everything has to have some deep hidden inner meaning.... sometimes, humour is a merciful distraction from uber-angst!
If so go sit at the feet of a teacher. I call it sun bathing.
>
|I call it wholesome and effective communication.
I have decided not just to fit in. lack of skillfulness aside it seems the best way. If I see I am doing any real harm I will stop of course.
>
Your current input is frankly lacking in skilfulness, which is a bit of a shame.
Not everything has to be so serious. It's almost like you feel that in order to be taken seriously, you have to dispense with any kind of humanity or character....
@federica said:Your current input is frankly lacking in skilfulness, which is a bit of a shame.
Not everything has to be so serious. It's almost like you feel that in order to be taken seriously, you have to dispense with any kind of humanity or character....
I can see I am not taken seriously. That of course is the problem. How should I "act"? Because you have learned how to act, in this humanity You think you fit in. No one fits in You may not see that until your death bed. When it is to late to do anything about it. All you will be able to say is I missed my chance to be who I am. For TV and a soda pop.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I know you are hopeless
Just thought I would give it a shot.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
LMAO!!
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
(Talk about pushing your luck..... :astonished: )
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Since we are all unique, we can't help but fit in. Our uniqueness is one thing we all have in common.
You should stop. Then realise you are not communicating. That makes your effort to induce understanding ignorant and unskilful.
You should behave:
Conventionally
Acceptably
Conveying any higher understanding in a multitude of levels
However if that were possible. You would.
Until you learn to do this you are perceived in the way you come across, without any higher capacity, wisdom or function. In other words your form reveals your inner nature.
lobster, Do you believe I have supernatural powers that are written in your texts?
I am talking from what I know not what I have read. The Buddha path is really just letting you know where you are on it and how to get started. I didn't think Karma was the soul until I came to this site. Then I found that the Buddha had typed different ones. This was confusing at first but when I started verifying made perfect practical sense. I Don't know how I do what I do but I know I do it. It is like moving you hand you do it but you really don't know how you do it.
I can't stop because I can do this is proof it is real. I can sit and meditate and I do. But it doesn't do any good to anyone else.
I am afraid I am here until you can't take it and stop me from posting.
Metta
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
Sorry lobster that is not the correct picture for a male.
I guess will let this be my answer.
Metta
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Greg911; it's OK to just be one of the chickens. You don't have to put on a show. Yes you are. That's what all this going back n forth with you is about. It's just happening with you right now. It doesn't happen with every member, just with those who want to control how they are perceived. You can't. Who and what you are comes across in spite of your attempts. And it's OK. It's hard for some people to feel OK AND be just one of the flock, they need to be ultra spiritual just to feel like they belong at all. You belong. You already belong. You don't have to try so hard -- in fact, your trying so hard is what is getting in the way. And you get what you give, always. That's probably scriptural. If you aren't getting what you expect or want, it's not us, it's you. Or me, this goes for everyone.
Then again, I suppose it can be kinda fun to get so much attention for yourself. It's really, really boring to read your posts, they don't make sense a lot. No one here will see that as you being on a higher level of being. We've seen higher levels of being and this ain't it. No big deal, just chill, you are OK without all this nonsense and ultra spiritual stuff.
@Hamsaka, I pretty much agree, except I would rephrase one sentence from "Who and what you are comes across in spite of your attempts." to "Who you appear to be and what you appear to be comes across..."
We can't really understand who is person "is" merely by postings online, particularly posting that are as short as ours typically are here. Perhaps it if were a long-term blog...maybe.
To each and all, including me -- when we are critiqued by others, we ought to pay attention. Some critiques are wrong, others mostly right, and some with a bit of truth. And if we are wise, we take a look in that mirror, realizing it may be like a funhouse mirror, or it may be just a regular, fairly accurate mirror. And then, of course, someone we have no respect for may critique us, and we just don't give a shit what they think.
In other words, who you think you are appearing to be might be different from who you are actually appearing to be. Which, of course differs from reader to reader.
The key is to try to be understood, even if what you are saying has little to do with how you actually are IRL. And don't get banned of course, otherwise your time here has been wasted, especially if Federica deletes all your comments.
I have no ill feelings about any of you. I have 30 years of experience I can't say I don't. If I am telling the truth and you don't see it and you don't ask questions how am I to reach you? I guess you could just kill all the rosters then there would only chickens. But the roster can't help being a roster.
I am not sure why this is not working but I definitely never stopped sending Metta.
I think will give it a rest.
If I may I would like to leave you with one more thought. Do you think it was unlucky that there was not a written language in the Buddhas time?
@Greg911 said:
I have no ill feelings about any of you. I have 30 years of experience I can't say I don't. If I am telling the truth and you don't see it and you don't ask questions how am I to reach you? I guess you could just kill all the rosters then there would only chickens. But the roster can't help being a roster.
I am not sure why this is not working but I definitely never stopped sending Metta.
I think will give it a rest.
If I may I would like to leave you with one more thought. Do you think it was unlucky that there was not a written language in the Buddhas time?
No matter how much experience you have, if you start talking about super powers, you lose everyone. People start thinking you might be a wing nut. If you haven't figured that out in 30 yrs, no one can reach you.
3
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Of course you have the experience, you just don't have to PROVE it to us. We're willing to take you at face value, by the quality and content of your posts. If a person brings their honest self here I've not seen any trouble with them being accepted in the fold. Maybe that's not what you want, though. If you want to stand out from the crowd, or be unique and special, I've not seen that go well around here.
I believe the Buddha or one of his famous followers commented on reasons to NOT pronounce one's attainments or special abilities. If not, he didn't need to. It is instinctual for people to recoil from someone who marches in with super powers. Usually they are nuts.
Comments
Not to derail the topic but Carl Sagan was not an atheist and in fact he disliked the term immensely.
This is what Carl Sagan said once:
“I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god.”
Anne Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow said:
“When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . . That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it’s much more meaningful. . . . The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.”
@ourself said:
James Randi, one of Carl Sagan's best friends, upholds that Carl Sagan was an atheist but preferred not to publicly discuss his position:
Carl Sagan meets the Dalai Lama:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2007/10/meeting-two-minds-carl-sagan-and-dalai-lama
http://thebuddhasface.blogspot.ch/2011/07/when-carl-sagan-met-dalai-lama.html>
He didn't pretend to have an inside scoop either way.
Whatever label, in the words of Anne Druyan, his wife, Carl Sagan was "a non-believer."
In 1996 he said in an interview with Tom Head "Conversations with Carl" that "I'm agnostic"
From the horses mouth.
>
Thank you most kindly, but after nearly 10 years' worth of Moderating experience, trust me - I can spot it a mile off. Particularly when others mention it too. My radar's pretty good, I think you'll find....
Whatever the label for Carl Sagan, one of the most brilliant minds of our generation did not need to subscribe to a theistic point of view in order to explain the origin of the universe.
And that very same fact did nothing to deter his unflinching curiosity and awe at the magnificence of the universe.
Interesting link on science and Buddhism:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/02/11/is-buddhism-the-most-science-friendly-religion/
I'd like to suggest to you all who may not have read this book by Thick Nhat Hanh: Old Path White Clouds, Walking in the Footsteps of the Buddha, which I've barely begun reading, but it hooked me right away with its charm and heart-opening style. It's about 600 pages long, and I'm on 113, about to start chapter 17.
I thought it would be applicable to this thread, given DhammaDragon's comment to Zenguitar: "I'd say you need to read a bit more about Buddhism because it is not Buddhism that fails to provide you with answers."
I can't even describe the feeling in my heart when reading pretty much every word about the story of Buddha's life.
Christianity and theism do not provide me with any satisfactory answers at all. When did I say they do, @dhammadragon? I was just asking if Buddhism is maybe not complete because it doesn't even try to answer some of these ultimate questions.
Maybe it is true that I should learn more about Buddhism. Who here would not benefit from that? I would add that perhaps some other people around here should read more about religions and philosophies which are not theistic and yet do address ultimate issues in ways that Buddhism does not. Then at least one could make an informed choice to be Buddhist.
>
It's not up to Buddhism to 'even try to answer some of these "ultimate" questions.'
It's up to you to find your own answers, by studying and following Buddhism. In time, the answers come, even if they merely consist of "yeah....? So what?"
>
We all do. But few of us ever ask the questions you do...
>
First of all, an awful lot of us have COME from those religions, having left them behind as lacking something we found more freely in Buddhism.
Secondly, could you give me an example or two of what 'ultimate issues' these Religions DO address, to any satisfactory degree, providing you with the answers you seek?
I'm damned if I found anything in Roman Catholicism which ticked even half the boxes, at times. And I was a practising catholic, born, bred and schooled, for nigh-on 40 years....
>
I'm tempted to treat that patronising remark with the contempt it deserves, but I will make allowances for your back having being got up....
It is for the very reason that most of us - if not all of us - MADE those 'informed choices' that we are adhering to a Buddhist calling.
Buddhism is about choice, all the way down the line. There are no directives or commandments. Everything is up to us, to discern, decide and choose.
We have all chosen Buddhism, precisely because we knew we had other choices.
Or have you not learnt that yet?
I grew up in a Catholic household, with a father who received a Jesuit education, and spent twelve years in a Catholic school.
When I was ten, I discovered Confucianism (not a religion, but an interesting ethical philosophy) and Taoism, which I still admire to this day.
At eleven a friend of mine introduced me to Theosophy.
By fourteen, I had bought my first rare books of Vedanta Philosophy.
Then came Western Philosophy at school and college.
At some point from there, I knew and chose Buddhism as my one and all doctrine for life.
I blew 44 candles last week, so I've been treading this path for quite a while and still find a lot to learn.
I'd say my choice was über- informed, and up until now, I have found not one existential misgiving that has not been addressed by Buddhism.
We have to know where to look.
And never stop learning.
Hear hear.
It's not so much that I believe the Buddha's message is uniquely all-encompassing because it is my personal religion. It's not a bias I have. It's that it doesn't matter if the Buddha never addressed How It All Began, where we are going or what the purpose of it all is. The older I get, the less I see how KNOWING any of this for sure is going to make any difference!
That said I really love learning about cosmology, what the Large Hadron Collider has recently discovered about the quantum universe; what the most recent discoveries are in neuroscience and neuroplasticity; the latest (and appalling) information on how we are fouling our nest and turning our planet into a hot house, the psychology of parrots, the fascinating interface of body and mind that seems to say any differences therein are illusions . . . you get my drift. And then I breathe and check in with all my parts for a while.
Think of how toddlers explore their world if allowed to do so. We naturally explore our lives and bodies and world. Did the Buddha need to address this specifically for Buddhism to be 'complete'? You can see how the question itself makes you go sideways into nonsense and nowhere
.
Go for it, go where your attention takes you. If you have a voice in your head critisizing you for where you go, question THAT. So much of this practice is discovering how we limit our own vision, cloud it up with assumptions that go unquestioned.
Important thing is not to wrongly assume that it is Buddhism that narrows our field of vision or the scope of our curiosity, nor calls for assumptions to go unquestioned.
First, my apologies for remarks earlier that seemed a bit patronizing. Those remarks were actually directed toward one member of the forum who seems to think I am a shill for Christianity, but now I realize those remarks shouldn't have been directed at anyone.
Second, I have stumbled upon a solution to this singular dilemma of mine which should be as obvious as it is elegant: syncretism. In Japan, most people are both Buddhist and Shinto, although the two religions have little in common. Similar admixtures of religion occur in other east Asian societies. Following the same paradigm, perhaps I will retain certain techniques of Buddhism to deal with suffering, while also adopting some other religion/philosophy (to be determined--but not Shinto or Christianity) to deal with questions of ultimate meaning.
Sorry to have disturbed you with my existential agonizing. Please carry on as usual.
Yup. Been doing that for a while. Welcome.
Goes along with my fairly recent realization that with most things in life it isn't one OR the other.
We learn by asking.
And we have a lot to learn. It never ends.
Re the original question:
"I know I'm not supposed to think about this, but does anyone else wonder why the universe seems to follow regular (albeit complex) mathematical laws?"
Why are you "not to think about this"? Did someone, say a Buddhist teacher, tell you to not do cosmology or theoretical physics? Who would that be? And how are you accountable to such a person for that statement? What would be their reasoning? I think you're a free agent that way.
I once heard on video a quote by Stephen Hawking. He said basically, point blank, that his thinking was closest to Buddhist thinking and philosophy. In English. On the record. He is a world class cosmologist and theoretical physicist.
Why would the universe not follow complex mathematical laws?
Why would Buddhism be against mathematics, theoretical physics, or cosmology?
You live I suppose in one of the free countries of the West.
Why would there be problem with your thinking about this subject or asking about this in one of the free countries?
I simply fail to see what obstacle is blocking you on the existential level.
Sounds like a real non-issue.
I am not challenging you. I just don't see where there is an issue to be addressed.
acharya
However, saying Buddhism is incomplete has to take the final goal into account because that it what defines completeness to begin with. Saying Buddhism is incomplete because it does not explain the origin of the universe, etc. is almost like saying a baseball coach's instruction is incomplete on how to play golf! Which would make perfect sense since he is not even a golf coach to begin with!
Yes, thank you all for listening to me think out loud.
Hi @acharya, see the first sentence of this article here, with its related citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
This is why I said it is discouraged to think about these things. It seems to be built into Buddhism itself...which I found a little disturbing.
Edit: (I am adding this paragraph so I don't start up yet another round of feisty debate) But I understand now why the Buddha did this. His goal was to put an end to suffering, not to answer these ultimate questions. In order to solve a problem, you have to define its scope first. Very practical.
Exactly.
Buddhism is as vast as the cultures, schools, lands and bibliography it encompasses.
It is not Buddhism that is incomplete.
It is our limited knowledge that is incomplete.
Damn.
And there was I, convinced I knew it all.
Actually, that is what happens at every break through, to everyone. Until you realize what is happening then you get to work sooner on the next break through.
“You are a function of what the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is a function of what the whole ocean is doing.”
― Alan W. Watts
“Paradoxical as it may seem, the purposeful life has no content, no point. It hurries on and on, and misses everything. Not hurrying, the purposeless life misses nothing, for it is only when there is no goal and no rush that the human senses are fully open to receive the world.”
― Alan W. Watts
“Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes.”
― Alan W. Watts
Any chance you could lighten up and show some humour at all....? :persevere:
You really don't want the laughing Buddha do you? If so go sit at the feet of a teacher. I call it sun bathing.
I have decided not just to fit in. lack of skillfulness aside it seems the best way. If I see I am doing any real harm I will stop of course.
>
no, I just think you should lighten up a bit. Jeesh, everything has to have some deep hidden inner meaning.... sometimes, humour is a merciful distraction from uber-angst!
>
|I call it wholesome and effective communication.
>
Your current input is frankly lacking in skilfulness, which is a bit of a shame.
Not everything has to be so serious. It's almost like you feel that in order to be taken seriously, you have to dispense with any kind of humanity or character....
Not everything has to be so serious. It's almost like you feel that in order to be taken seriously, you have to dispense with any kind of humanity or character....
I can see I am not taken seriously. That of course is the problem. How should I "act"? Because you have learned how to act, in this humanity You think you fit in. No one fits in You may not see that until your death bed. When it is to late to do anything about it. All you will be able to say is I missed my chance to be who I am. For TV and a soda pop.
Yeah.
Whatever.
I know you are hopeless
Just thought I would give it a shot.
LMAO!!
(Talk about pushing your luck..... :astonished: )
Yeah.
Whatever.
We all have the same self or whatever you call it.
You should stop. Then realise you are not communicating. That makes your effort to induce understanding ignorant and unskilful.
You should behave:
However if that were possible. You would.
Until you learn to do this you are perceived in the way you come across, without any higher capacity, wisdom or function. In other words your form reveals your inner nature.
lobster, Do you believe I have supernatural powers that are written in your texts?
I am talking from what I know not what I have read. The Buddha path is really just letting you know where you are on it and how to get started. I didn't think Karma was the soul until I came to this site. Then I found that the Buddha had typed different ones. This was confusing at first but when I started verifying made perfect practical sense. I Don't know how I do what I do but I know I do it. It is like moving you hand you do it but you really don't know how you do it.
I can't stop because I can do this is proof it is real. I can sit and meditate and I do. But it doesn't do any good to anyone else.
I am afraid I am here until you can't take it and stop me from posting.
Metta
Wow. Just wow.
I know exactly what your unnatural 'powers' are.
Now I kindly suggest you find out where you are . .
Where are they?
Sorry lobster that is not the correct picture for a male.
I guess will let this be my answer.
Metta
@Greg911; it's OK to just be one of the chickens. You don't have to put on a show. Yes you are. That's what all this going back n forth with you is about. It's just happening with you right now. It doesn't happen with every member, just with those who want to control how they are perceived. You can't. Who and what you are comes across in spite of your attempts. And it's OK. It's hard for some people to feel OK AND be just one of the flock, they need to be ultra spiritual just to feel like they belong at all. You belong. You already belong. You don't have to try so hard -- in fact, your trying so hard is what is getting in the way. And you get what you give, always. That's probably scriptural. If you aren't getting what you expect or want, it's not us, it's you. Or me, this goes for everyone.
Then again, I suppose it can be kinda fun to get so much attention for yourself. It's really, really boring to read your posts, they don't make sense a lot. No one here will see that as you being on a higher level of being. We've seen higher levels of being and this ain't it. No big deal, just chill, you are OK without all this nonsense and ultra spiritual stuff.
@Hamsaka, I pretty much agree, except I would rephrase one sentence from "Who and what you are comes across in spite of your attempts." to "Who you appear to be and what you appear to be comes across..."
We can't really understand who is person "is" merely by postings online, particularly posting that are as short as ours typically are here. Perhaps it if were a long-term blog...maybe.
To each and all, including me -- when we are critiqued by others, we ought to pay attention. Some critiques are wrong, others mostly right, and some with a bit of truth. And if we are wise, we take a look in that mirror, realizing it may be like a funhouse mirror, or it may be just a regular, fairly accurate mirror. And then, of course, someone we have no respect for may critique us, and we just don't give a shit what they think.
In other words, who you think you are appearing to be might be different from who you are actually appearing to be. Which, of course differs from reader to reader.
The key is to try to be understood, even if what you are saying has little to do with how you actually are IRL. And don't get banned of course, otherwise your time here has been wasted, especially if Federica deletes all your comments.
I have no ill feelings about any of you. I have 30 years of experience I can't say I don't. If I am telling the truth and you don't see it and you don't ask questions how am I to reach you? I guess you could just kill all the rosters then there would only chickens. But the roster can't help being a roster.
I am not sure why this is not working but I definitely never stopped sending Metta.
I think will give it a rest.
If I may I would like to leave you with one more thought. Do you think it was unlucky that there was not a written language in the Buddhas time?
No matter how much experience you have, if you start talking about super powers, you lose everyone. People start thinking you might be a wing nut. If you haven't figured that out in 30 yrs, no one can reach you.
Of course you have the experience, you just don't have to PROVE it to us. We're willing to take you at face value, by the quality and content of your posts. If a person brings their honest self here I've not seen any trouble with them being accepted in the fold. Maybe that's not what you want, though. If you want to stand out from the crowd, or be unique and special, I've not seen that go well around here.
I believe the Buddha or one of his famous followers commented on reasons to NOT pronounce one's attainments or special abilities. If not, he didn't need to. It is instinctual for people to recoil from someone who marches in with super powers. Usually they are nuts.