I am surprised more people in the west aren't Buddhist, especially people with a love for philosophy. I have to wonder if maybe they are just never properly introduced to it. Maybe some of them think "organized religion" and just discard it as something not worth their time. Which is sad.
I am not totally sold on Buddhism, though. Reincarnation doesn't fully make sense to me, there are some spots where it and science clash. Also, I haven't seen any proof of it, and if something is not verifiable by you, you have no reason to believe it. Both buddhism and science stress that, and I believe it as well.
I also have been given no proof of Karma. While it is easy for me to believe in it, I refuse to without proper evidence. Life has ups and downs, and the buddhist rules of karma say that negative actions could have negative consequences immediately, or waaay down the road. so I am not sure how I could decide whether or not I believe this.
Anyways, are there any buddhists on tl.net? I know there is at least a couple.
How many of you believe in reincarnation or karma? How many of you know anything about buddhism? Would you like to learn about it? I would love to discuss it.
pssst. how many of you even know what the point of buddhism is? like, what it is even about ?
my friend told me the western idea of karma isn't entirely right, and its not really simple as "if you do good things, good things will happen to you" but more like "if you do good things, you will have a better outlook on life, which will make you happier" or something like that, which i believe is totally true and it's how I base my life in most situations.
On July 28 2008 08:02 Steelflight-Rx wrote: my friend told me the western idea of karma isn't entirely right, and its not really simple as "if you do good things, good things will happen to you" but more like "if you do good things, you will have a better outlook on life, which will make you happier" or something like that, which i believe is totally true and it's how I base my life in most situations.
Either you are doing a poor job of explaining, or your friend is incorrect.
buddhism is pretty gay. I've read alot about it in religion class and I have a couple of relatives who are buddhists. It's way too mild to compete with the 'real' religions, it doesn't have any harsh rules at all, the main branch that is. All those things you wrote about it fits better in on hinduism since the reincarnation and karma is even more in focus in that religion. Buddhism is more focused upon the enlightenment and the path toward it.
On July 28 2008 08:02 Steelflight-Rx wrote: my friend told me the western idea of karma isn't entirely right, and its not really simple as "if you do good things, good things will happen to you" but more like "if you do good things, you will have a better outlook on life, which will make you happier" or something like that, which i believe is totally true and it's how I base my life in most situations.
Either you are doing a poor job of explaining, or your friend is incorrect.
(no offense meant)
nah none taken, it could be either one, idk how much my friend knows about boudhism, or how well im explaining. But i think the first part I said is correct: its not as simple as "if you do good things, goon things will happen to you" or "what goes around comes around" that might be the overall effect, but its not like if you do something good u get karma points or something, and King Bouddha has to pay it off somehow.
I believe there is a higher power that looks down on you,and when something really good starts happening says the following line "hey,fuck you" then fucks you over. I mean just look at sAviOr..he was doing good then this higher power said the following line "hey,fuck you" instant slump.
On July 28 2008 08:19 Shauni wrote: buddhism is pretty gay. I've read alot about it in religion class and I have a couple of relatives who are buddhists.
ok
It's way too mild to compete with the 'real' religions, it doesn't have any harsh rules at all, the main branch that is.
since when is the worth of a religion determined by it's popularity?
All those things you wrote about it fits better in on hinduism since the reincarnation and karma is even more in focus in that religion.
On July 28 2008 08:02 Steelflight-Rx wrote: my friend told me the western idea of karma isn't entirely right, and its not really simple as "if you do good things, good things will happen to you" but more like "if you do good things, you will have a better outlook on life, which will make you happier" or something like that, which i believe is totally true and it's how I base my life in most situations.
Either you are doing a poor job of explaining, or your friend is incorrect.
(no offense meant)
nah none taken, it could be either one, idk how much my friend knows about boudhism, or how well im explaining. But i think the first part I said is correct: its not as simple as "if you do good things, goon things will happen to you" or "what goes around comes around" that might be the overall effect, but its not like if you do something good u get karma points or something, and King Bouddha has to pay it off somehow.
I already understand the basis of how it works according to Buddhism.
Here are the 4 laws of karma:
1. Results are similar to the cause. Simply said, when I cause other people harm, I will harvest suffering myself. It is important to note here, that "positive" actions are defined as actions that have happiness as a result; "negative" actions are defined as actions that lead to suffering as a result. 2. No results without a cause. As is obvious within science, things do not just appear out of nothing. 3. Once an action is done, the result is never lost. Similarly as above, things do not just disappear into nothing. 4. Karma expands. Once we have an imprint of an action in our mind, it tends to be habit-forming. As is often said in wars for example, killing the first enemy is tough, but after a handful, one quickly loses count and it becomes "normal". Also psychology often stresses a similar point when e.g. explaining actions of adults from their childhood experiences.
To me, karma is just another religious concept used as a double-edged sword to comfort the believers and threaten the non-believers.
Christian version: If you do good things, you're one step closer to Heaven/paradise. But if you do bad things. You're one step closer to Hell where you will suffer and suffer and suffer and..
Buddhist version: You do good things, you will probably reincarnate as a human and be closer to ultimate enlightenment and nirvana/paradise. But, if you do bad things, once again you are fucked. But this time, as a frog or a zergling maybe.
Looking at it this way, there's no fundamental difference between the concepts. (Sure, karma can (from my understanding) affect you during your own lifetime but that's not the point). Both are just hollow promises/threats as you conveniently have to wait until after you die to prove them.
my tuppence.
edit: Cloud wtf. It is a trite fact that Buddhism doesn't fit exactly with other major religions because of its lack of a God. However this doesn't mean it is incomparable to other religions. It is really foolish to say:
If you try to compare it to other religions [...] then you have no clue on the subject.
Bhudism and Confusionism are not exactly religions, more like models of life. If you try to compare it to other religions or look down on it because youre some die hard atheist, then you have no clue on the subject.
OK I dont neccesarily believe in 'karma' but the fact that if shit happens, theres usually a reason, which in that sense is karma but I don't have a Buddhist base for it or anything.
IE:The Jaedong x ForGG Finals were going to start soon and I had yet to clean my room, wash dishes, or apply to vote for this election(as my mother had asked me to for the past week,(excluding the dishes in that time frame weeks worth of dishes is T_T) or so).
So I'm all excited for the finals and that I have nothing to do but that and am wondering how to kill time when I find out I can't connect to the internet. I go downstairs to find my parents telling me the TV isnt working Charter cut out compleletly, i mean EVERYTHING there was no cable no internet, all lines were busy. The whole time I was running this crazy selfish thought through my head, man this must be all my fault for not doing all this crap, so I take my time in NOT doing anything anyways, reading artemis fowl, watching some Scrub's episodes I had watched so long ago to refresh the jokes and bring back my 'happy mood'.
After an hour or so of sulking while at the same time enjoying scrubs I find out that NOTHING has come back, so I consider doing EVERYTHING. I then spend the next 1hr and half cleaning my room, registering to vote and washing the dishes (dirty room that was the big part of it) right as I finish drying the last dish(my parents have the TV on still because they want to be able to catch their movie the instant it comes back I hear the sound of a swiffer commercial.
At this point I sigh and just shake my head at whoever orcheastrated this muttering to myself 'well played, good sir, well played' and go up to my room to chat in IRC and wait for the finals to begin.
On July 28 2008 08:34 Elric_ wrote: To me, karma is just another religious concept used as a double-edged sword to comfort the believers and threaten the non-believers.
Christian version: If you do good things, you're one step closer to Heaven/paradise. But if you do bad things. You're one step closer to Hell where you will suffer and suffer and suffer and..
thats not how christianity works but whatever
Buddhist version: You do good things, you will probably reincarnate as a human and be closer to ultimate enlightenment and nirvana/paradise. But, if you do bad things, once again you are fucked. But this time, as a frog or a zergling maybe.
Kind of correct
Looking at it this way, there's no fundamental difference between the concepts. (Sure, karma can (from my understanding) affect you during your own lifetime but that's not the point). Both are just hollow promises/threats as you conveniently have to wait until after you die to prove them.
Well I immediately see one key difference between the 2 examples. Buddhist karma says that you can always come back, you can always create good karma and reach enlightenment.
Whereas in Christianity you go to hell and you burn forever.
And to claim buddhism uses anything to control people is ridiculous. The entire basis of buddhism is that you use your brain and you verify what it teaches for yourself.
On July 28 2008 08:41 Monokeros wrote: OK I dont neccesarily believe in 'karma' but the fact that if shit happens, theres usually a reason, which in that sense is karma but I don't have a Buddhist base for it or anything.
IE:The Jaedong x ForGG Finals were going to start soon and I had yet to clean my room, wash dishes, or apply to vote for this election(as my mother had asked me to for the past week,(excluding the dishes in that time frame weeks worth of dishes is T_T) or so).
So I'm all excited for the finals and that I have nothing to do but that and am wondering how to kill time when I find out I can't connect to the internet. I go downstairs to find my parents telling me the TV isnt working Charter cut out compleletly, i mean EVERYTHING there was no cable no internet, all lines were busy. The whole time I was running this crazy selfish thought through my head, man this must be all my fault for not doing all this crap, so I take my time in NOT doing anything anyways, reading artemis fowl, watching some Scrub's episodes I had watched so long ago to refresh the jokes and bring back my 'happy mood'.
After an hour or so of sulking while at the same time enjoying scrubs I find out that NOTHING has come back, so I consider doing EVERYTHING. I then spend the next 1hr and half cleaning my room, registering to vote and washing the dishes (dirty room that was the big part of it) right as I finish drying the last dish(my parents have the TV on still because they want to be able to catch their movie the instant it comes back I hear the sound of a swiffer commercial.
At this point I sigh and just shake my head at whoever orcheastrated this muttering to myself 'well played, good sir, well played' and go up to my room to chat in IRC and wait for the finals to begin.
In the buddhist sense this could be a good example of Karma.
My understanding of karma is that every action/deed has a consequence. Whether the consequence is good or bad depends on the nature of the original action. I dont think karma really exists, people just use it on the basis of confirmation bias.
It's probably already been said, but in a purely logical sense, if you do something 'bad' people will feel animosity toward you, which makes it more likely for bad things to happen to you (people won't be as conscious of your welfare as normal), and someone might even go out of their way to hurt you. That's just common sense, and it goes the same way if you do good things.
If you want to talk about karma in games and sports... if you're disrespectful of your opponents, you only fuel their desire to hurt you. You'll be the target of body checks in Hockey, you'll be the target of everyone in Gin Rummy for bad cards.
There's a hidden logic to karma, qi and feng shui that goes beyond foolish oogy boogiery. I don't think any Buddhists are trying to convince people the world is magical; they're just trying to share a wisdom that will help you best live your life, with or without calling yourself Buddhist. Even reincarnation has a logic to it... When you die, your body decomposes and helps fertilize soil for new plants to grow, which new animals can feed on, and be fed on... I admit I don't know an entirely large amount about Buddhism, but I've never seen them as the crazy mystical types, or illogical leapers of faith with abandonment of reality (such as certain popular Western religions are).
On July 28 2008 08:56 CommanderFluffy wrote: My understanding of karma is that every action/deed has a consequence. Whether the consequence is good or bad depends on the nature of the original action. I dont think karma really exists, people just use it on the basis of confirmation bias.
Yes, that is what the purely logical calculating part of me says.
But then the subjective part steps in and says "but remember when this happened and then that happened??
Life is very strange if you take enough time to examine it. I have trouble believing some of the situations I get into are not part of a greater scheme.
It might be tempting to look for explanations when things happen that are out of your control, like your favourite starcraft player lose, your car crashes or someone you love dies in an accident.
But these are natural things that can happen to anyone, they don't happen because you are being a good or bad person.
On July 28 2008 09:00 jtan wrote: There's no reason to believe in karma.
what is that supposed to mean? either it is real or it isn't. that's like saying there is no reason to believe the earth is round(or flat ). Either it is or it isn't, the point is in knowing the truth so that you can use it.
It might be tempting to look for explanations when things happen that are out of your control, like your favourite starcraft player lose, your car crashes or someone you love dies in an accident.
But these are natural things that can happen to anyone, they don't happen because you are being a good or bad person.
the sun is made out of water and im right because I say so
There are forms of Buddhism that are completely stripped of any irrational beliefs such as reincarnation or karma, making them effectively a spiritual practice or merely a philosophy with an emphasis on experiencing the world within us. I guess there's little reason to call it Buddhism by those practicing it, yet one must recognize the merit of the originators of these practices.
I think meditation is a worthwhile discipline. Ekhart Tolle describes in "The Power of Now" how meditation can bring a state of supreme bliss and peace, free of the constraints of the past, the future, free of what we commonly associate with our identity, bathed in our true identity, that consists simply of our consciousness, our being.
Sam Harris sees meditation as an instrument into one's spiritual world (if the word "spiritual" is too much for you, I guess ""inner" or "subjective" are equally good). Just like one must first build a telescope to study the stars in detail, so must one first invest a considerable amount of time and effort in building an "inner telescope" through mastering the practice of meditation. After reaching a high enough level of control of the surprisingly difficult task of observing and guiding your thoughts, one can start to explore and experience the world in a different way. One of his realizations is that there is no "I", that what we usually associate with our identity is merely an illusion, the boundaries we impose between us and the landscape in which we find ourselves are an illusion.
As I sat and gazed upon the surrounding hills gently sloping to an inland sea, a feeling of peace came over me. It soon grew to a blissful stillness that silenced my thoughts. In an instant, the sense of being a separate self—an “I” or a “me”—vanished. Everything was as it had been—the cloudless sky, the pilgrims clutching their bottles of water—but I no longer felt like I was separate from the scene, peering out at the world from behind my eyes. Only the world remained.
I have tried meditation by the simple to state but difficult to follow exercise of observing my thoughts as they appear and simply stopping them as I observe them, returning to the initial state of waiting for a thought to occur spontaneously. I have reached the sought-after "thoughtless" state, although only for a few fleeting moments. I haven't even glimpsed the state of blissful peace and acceptance of the world, or the feeling of losing one's self that other have, although I am a beginner.
I prefer to use meditation devoid of any metaphysical context, simply because my mind cannot accept assertions on any other grounds than evidence. Since subjective experience, like qualia, is hard to put under a microscope, I take everything I read on meditation with a grain of salt. It is however encouraging when people of completely different backgrounds describe their experience in such a similar fashion (please watch the 3 videos at the end of the post). Also, as long as they don't make truth claims about the world, but simply describe as best they can their experience, I find it worthwhile to take their advice and explore and see first-hand what works and what doesn't.
Sorry for sort of going off-topic. As far as Buddhism goes, I understand the Dalai Lama has repeatedly said that "if science contradicts Buddhist beliefs, science wins!". How many other religious leaders have said anything remotely close to that?
There's like 10 different posters so far on this thread, and about that many unique interpretations of the theory of Karma. Of course it makes sense to some and is absolute batshit crazy to others - you aren't talking about the same thing.
My interpretation is that the Buddhist doctrine asserts that eventually, everything normalizes. Good shit is good because it helps everyone. Bad shit is bad because it is hurtful. Consistently do good stuff, and the benefits will eventually reach you - verify with statistics and probability theory. Consistently do bad stuff, and the results will eventually bite your ass - also verify with statistics and probability theory.
Now, the part about reincarnation and what you did in your previous life affecting you today -- surely the lives and decisions of previous persons affect today's lives and decisions, but whether or not there is some sort of "spirit" or "me-ness" that survives death and goes on in another life is moot for me -- I can't remember, and I don't care if I can't remember and there are no other implications. Yay for longest sentence in the thread.
What evidence have you personally witnessed though? Maybe you've seen the Earth's curve over the Ocean, which only suggests the Earth could be round, but that's not much more than anyone saying "this guys an asshole, and because of that people weren't worried about his safety when they saw him in potential danger."
Like... I don't know what you think karma is... It's not some hokey pokey witchcraft, it's just common sense. "What goes around, comes around." You can't argue that you don't increase the chances of people feeling animosity toward you if you're an asshole and never generous.
On July 28 2008 09:09 Doctorasul wrote: There are forms of Buddhism that are completely stripped of any irrational beliefs such as reincarnation or karma, making them effectively a spiritual practice or merely a philosophy with an emphasis on experiencing the world within us. I guess there's little reason to call it Buddhism by those practicing it, yet one must recognize the merit of the originators of these practices.
I think it is unfair to call them irrational. Buddhism says that Buddhas are enlightened. And so if Buddha says he can remember past lives, and he can interpret karma, then there should be no reason to call him irrational. Though there would certainly be reason to doubt him.
Anyways, thank you for good the post. watching some videos .
To believe in karma, you'd have to assume there's some sort of supernatural scheme going on. Why would you make that assumption when you don't have to?
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
Obviously saving someone's life will lead to positive benefits (or a reward) from that someone, a logical series of events. But helping an old woman cross the street isn't gonna randomly lead to a promotion at work. Probably not great examples, but you get the point. There's logical responses based off of actions, then there's coincidence.
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
Obviously saving someone's life will lead to positive benefits (or a reward) from that someone, a logical series of events. But helping an old woman cross the street isn't gonna randomly lead to a promotion at work. Probably not great examples, but you get the point. There's logical responses based off of actions, then there's coincidence.
QFE.
For added emphasis, I think some of you guys should look up the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti monster.
Edit: :/ Doesn't seem like you guys did. Here's a less belittling version:
On July 28 2008 08:19 Shauni wrote: buddhism is pretty gay. I've read alot about it in religion class and I have a couple of relatives who are buddhists.
All those things you wrote about it fits better in on hinduism since the reincarnation and karma is even more in focus in that religion.
I don't know what you are trying to mean by this.
I mean literally gay. It's too soft. Real religions should have a holy book where you interpret and declare war over the different views on the books. Buddhism doesn't have anything like that, and a lot of people in my country is like 'yeah, I'm an atheist but if I wanted to belong to a religion it'd be buddhism cause it's so peaceful and kind etc etc'. You get the point. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, because obviously the buddhism way of living makes a lot more sense than most religions in the present. But it's very meek and a lot more of philosophy than actual religion (no god or scribings, no real requirements to join, enlightenment and the meditation to gain enlightenment). I didn't intend that the 'worth' of buddhism is lesser than with any other religion. I guess phrased that bad.
What I meant in that last paragraph was that I was slightly confused as to why you started talking about buddhism then proceeded to write down general stuff which a lot of asian religions follow. I'm not questioning your knowledge of buddhism, I'm just saying that if there are any fellow teamliquidans who doesn't know anything about buddhism, they won't understand the religion very well from reading your opening post.
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point.
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point.
Just out of curiosity, what are the other methods? Empirical evidence falls under science doesn't it?
On July 28 2008 09:34 Shauni wrote: What I meant in that last paragraph was that I was slightly confused as to why you started talking about buddhism then proceeded to write down general stuff which a lot of asian religions follow. I'm not questioning your knowledge of buddhism, I'm just saying that if there are any fellow teamliquidans who doesn't know anything about buddhism, they won't understand the religion very well from reading your opening post.
Karma and reincarnation are part of buddhism. I don't understand you.
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point.
Just out of curiosity, what are the other methods? Empirical evidence falls under science doesn't it?
Introspection. Figuring out what makes sense with your own mind. Philosophy, meditation, whatever you want to call it.
What evidence have you personally witnessed though? Maybe you've seen the Earth's curve over the Ocean, which only suggests the Earth could be round, but that's not much more than anyone saying "this guys an asshole, and because of that people weren't worried about his safety when they saw him in potential danger."
The point here is that I don't have to be able to prove everything myself in order to believe it's true, it is ok to pass things on to the experts when you know how the scientific community works. Dennet talks about this: start watching at about 21 minutes.
Like... I don't know what you think karma is... It's not some hokey pokey witchcraft, it's just common sense. "What goes around, comes around." You can't argue that you don't increase the chances of people feeling animosity toward you if you're an asshole and never generous.
Ok now you'r talking about another thing
If you define karma like that, it's just like you say, common sense. But the karma thing buddhists are talking about is something different, namely that good actions should lead to good results in your life without any natural connection between them.
Like saving a cat from a tree would make sunshine the next day more likely.
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point.
Just out of curiosity, what are the other methods? Empirical evidence falls under science doesn't it?
Introspection. Figuring out what makes sense with your own mind. Philosophy, meditation, whatever you want to call it.
Ah, but how does figuring out what makes sense with your own mind make it a truth? Truth pertaining to reality, at least.
Truth, reality, knowledge. How do you tell them apart, or if there's actually any difference? That question is about as silly as you want it to be. OOh. Deep!
I see the theory of karma to be pretty sound. You do stuff, it tends to result in other stuff, which might or might not affect you. Now, seemingly unrelated stuff might still affect you - because you just neglected to consider something. Saving cats and getting a raise are seemingly unrelated, but if you're the type of person who'll go save cats, maybe that's an indication that you're the type of guy that's more likely to get a raise. Just switch around the causality and you're set.
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point.
Just out of curiosity, what are the other methods? Empirical evidence falls under science doesn't it?
Introspection. Figuring out what makes sense with your own mind. Philosophy, meditation, whatever you want to call it.
Ah, but how does figuring out what makes sense with your own mind make it a truth? Truth pertaining to reality, at least.
How does science coming to a "conclusion" make it truth, either? Both a meditative mind, and a scientific law, are changed and reshaped as what we know changes.
And actually, I have found my intuition to be more useful in practice than what I have been taught. But maybe that is because of bad teachers. Or good intuition.
To believe in karma, you'd have to assume there's some sort of supernatural scheme going on.
no you don't. you're being closeminded. what kind of world do you think we live in? how much do you really know?
we don't even know what causes consciousness. how can you say that.
There's many theories for what caused consciousness to evolve, but it's true that there's still many things science can not explain. But the number of things that can be explained by natural phenomena has been increasing through the centuries, which makes me think there's no supernatural things going on in the background. But all you need to convince me otherwise is some evidence. Right now you are just guessing.
To believe in karma, you'd have to assume there's some sort of supernatural scheme going on.
no you don't. you're being closeminded. what kind of world do you think we live in? how much do you really know?
we don't even know what causes consciousness. how can you say that.
There's many theories for what caused consciousness to evolve, but it's true that there's still many things science can not explain. But the number of things that can be explained by natural phenomena has been increasing through the centuries, which makes me think there's no supernatural things going on in the background. But all you need to convince me otherwise is some evidence. Right now you are just guessing.
The point here is that I don't have to be able to prove everything myself in order to believe it's true, it is ok to pass things on to the experts when you know how the scientific community works.
That's still an act of faith by any definition. If you can see my point here, what you believe is a matter of convenience because it helps you to cope with the world you understand better. It's irrelevant whether you read it in a book, your mother told you, or your friend told you.
If you define karma like that, it's just like you say, common sense. But the karma thing buddhists are talking about is something different, namely that good actions should lead to good results in your life without any natural connection between them.
Like saving a cat from a tree would make sunshine the next day more likely.
On July 28 2008 09:40 jtan wrote: If you define karma like that, it's just like you say, common sense. But the karma thing buddhists are talking about is something different, namely that good actions should lead to good results in your life without any natural connection between them.
This is inaccurate. Buddhists are no more superstitious than you are.
I am not saying the buddhists are correct about karma and reincarnation. I am just saying that I see no good reason to doubt them.
Really? All the "superstitious" stuff was a result of misinterpretations? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe it's just your flavor of Buddhism that's not superstitious.
I know that around here (in Korea), people actually pray to Buddha as if he was the Christian God, asking for boons. Maybe not people you'd recognize as true Buddhists, but they wear the label and say silly things about the nature of the universe.
On July 28 2008 09:59 BottleAbuser wrote: Really? All the "superstitious" stuff was a result of misinterpretations? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe it's just your flavor of Buddhism that's not superstitious.
I know that around here (in Korea), people actually pray to Buddha as if he was the Christian God, asking for boons. Maybe not people you'd recognize as true Buddhists, but they wear the label and say silly things about the nature of the universe.
yeah those people aren't buddhists, they are posers. but there a posers in every religion.
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point.
Just out of curiosity, what are the other methods? Empirical evidence falls under science doesn't it?
Introspection. Figuring out what makes sense with your own mind. Philosophy, meditation, whatever you want to call it.
Ah, but how does figuring out what makes sense with your own mind make it a truth? Truth pertaining to reality, at least.
How does science coming to a "conclusion" make it truth, either? Both a meditative mind, and a scientific law, are changed and reshaped as what we know changes.
And actually, I have found my intuition to be more useful in practice than what I have been taught. But maybe that is because of bad teachers. Or good intuition.
well if you're convinced that the Earth is round then I'm sure most of science's conclusions will seem on the money to you. These conclusions/theories are based off of empirical evidence/logical reasoning which is really the best we've got, everything else is faith.
Like a caveman will know that eating meat nourishes him because he's done it. He can believe that eating a rock will nourish him, but until he tries it he can't know because he has just a hypothesis (or more of a guess). Haha probably another weird/bad example, but hopefully the message gets across
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition.
How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized?
Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence.
Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it.
science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point.
Just out of curiosity, what are the other methods? Empirical evidence falls under science doesn't it?
Introspection. Figuring out what makes sense with your own mind. Philosophy, meditation, whatever you want to call it.
Ah, but how does figuring out what makes sense with your own mind make it a truth? Truth pertaining to reality, at least.
How does science coming to a "conclusion" make it truth, either? Both a meditative mind, and a scientific law, are changed and reshaped as what we know changes.
And actually, I have found my intuition to be more useful in practice than what I have been taught. But maybe that is because of bad teachers. Or good intuition.
well if you're convinced that the Earth is round then I'm sure most of science's conclusions will seem on the money to you. These conclusions/theories are based off of empirical evidence/logical reasoning which is really the best we've got, everything else is faith.
Buddhist meditation works on the laws of cause and effect as well. Buddhism is absolutely not about faith!
Like a caveman will know that eating meat nourishes him because he's done it. He can believe that eating a rock will nourish him, but until he tries it he can't know because he has just a hypothesis (or more of a guess). Haha probably another weird/bad example, but hopefully the message gets across
Well I really don't know how buddhists reached some of the conclusions they did.
To me personally karma is a way of living. Do good things and you will get good things, do bad and you get bad things. Just like another version of "what goes around comes around" or "you harvest what seed(i think)".
Kind of derailing, hope you don't mind... but you'll probably want to clarify which school of Buddhism you associate with, so you don't get lumped in with everyone who calls himself a Buddhist. It's futile to say "they aren't actually Buddhists/Christians/Hindu" when that's what they call themselves - who's right? The actual basis of the religion is the same - the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama. The interpretation is what's different.
Also irritates me to no end when Protestants identify themselves as Christian, which is fine, but then refuse to recognize Catholics as Christian. "They're Catholics. Not Christian. I'm Christian." Idiots, for more reasons than just that, but it's another topic.
Also: I find many of Buddhist teachings to be quite logical. Just not very appealing. Like: "Suffering is the result of wanting something and not getting it. Solution is to not want anything." I'd much prefer to want something and get it.
The point here is that I don't have to be able to prove everything myself in order to believe it's true, it is ok to pass things on to the experts when you know how the scientific community works.
That's still an act of faith by any definition. If you can see my point here, what you believe is a matter of convenience because it helps you to cope with the world you understand better. It's irrelevant whether you read it in a book, your mother told you, or your friend told you.
In a sense you are right, but you can't equate the efforts of the scientific community with what a person tells you, or what you read in a holy book.
The results the scientific community agrees on tends to be true - not in the litteral sense (you can't prove results about the physical world is ultimatly true) - but in the sense that it "works", and you can make use of that piece of science.
On July 28 2008 09:34 Shauni wrote: What I meant in that last paragraph was that I was slightly confused as to why you started talking about buddhism then proceeded to write down general stuff which a lot of asian religions follow. I'm not questioning your knowledge of buddhism, I'm just saying that if there are any fellow teamliquidans who doesn't know anything about buddhism, they won't understand the religion very well from reading your opening post.
Karma and reincarnation are part of buddhism. I don't understand you.
Hello fellow christians, let's talk about believing in god! Do you believe in god?
To me, you made it look like reincarnation and karma is the definition of buddhism. What is it that you don't understand?
And yeah, I know buddhism reincarnation differs slightly from the other eastern religions.
What's your point Shauni? He makes it clear he's talking about reincarnation and Karma in the context of Buddhism. It's not his responsibility to educate all readers on what exactly the doctrine is; it's too complex to explain comprehensively in a blog post, and it's not difficult to get a general understanding from a minute on Wikipedia.
On July 28 2008 10:11 BottleAbuser wrote: Also: I find many of Buddhist teachings to be quite logical. Just not very appealing. Like: "Suffering is the result of wanting something and not getting it. Solution is to not want anything." I'd much prefer to want something and get it.
All things are impermanent. Wanting something and receiving it will only grant a temporary respite from suffering.
On July 28 2008 10:11 BottleAbuser wrote: Kind of derailing, hope you don't mind... but you'll probably want to clarify which school of Buddhism you associate with, so you don't get lumped in with everyone who calls himself a Buddhist. It's futile to say "they aren't actually Buddhists/Christians/Hindu" when that's what they call themselves - who's right? The actual basis of the religion is the same - the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama. The interpretation is what's different.
tibetan buddhism but I suspect that the part of the religion I care about is the same in all schools.
Also: I find many of Buddhist teachings to be quite logical. Just not very appealing. Like: "Suffering is the result of wanting something and not getting it. Solution is to not want anything." I'd much prefer to want something and get it.
Let's say I find the rewarding aspects of fulfilling my desires to outweigh the unpleasantness of when my desires are not fulfilled. I might be guaranteed a suffering-free life if I quashed all my wants, but... oh whatever, these are first-tier arguments that we'll probably disagree on and never resolve. Better not to start. Let's leave it at "we disagree on how to solve problems."
On July 28 2008 10:38 BottleAbuser wrote: Let's say I find the rewarding aspects of fulfilling my desires to outweigh the unpleasantness of when my desires are not fulfilled. I might be guaranteed a suffering-free life if I quashed all my wants, but...
eh I know what you mean
but really what is the reasoning for giving it all up if you are not convinced there is a greater state to attain. not much point to spend your life trying to stop wanting and then to just die. if there is no ultimate goal, I agree that it is more worthwhile to indulge in life's distractions and be happy.
You have to keep in mind that Buddhism is not a singular discipline. There are different strands with different ideas.
In my understanding, there are kinds of Buddhism that are more oriented towards "the masses," and there are more philosophical strands of buddhism. My interest is primarily in Zen, and yes, it is very influential in my thinking. I've never studied it formally, only gleaned bits here and there.
Zen tends to look beyond good and evil (no coincidence here that I am referencing Nietzsche's book, Beyond Good and Evil - there is some real overlap). It emphasizes that good and evil are interpretations. Consider the koan about the zen farmer: a zen farmer's horses run away one day. The villagers remark what bad luck this is. The zen farmer says "maybe." Next day, the zen farmer finds his horses in the countryside, and several wild horses as well. He brings these home. The villagers say "wow, what great luck!" "Maybe." The next day, the farmer's son is riding one of the wild horses and falls off and is trampled. He is crippled for life. The villagers see this as bad luck. The farmer says "maybe." Later on, an army comes through the village recruiting young people to go to war, but the farmer's son cannot go because he is crippled. Later, news comes back to the village that all the men who were recruited died in battle. The farmer is seen as lucky, but again, to this he would say only "maybe."
And see, this story illustrates that good and bad (good and bad luck, in this case) are situational, and that if we are seeing clearly (without imposing our concepts or limitations on reality) we realize that there is no good and bad. What seems good can be the seed that spawns bad, and the bad may in turn be the seed that spawns good. There really is no good or bad. The world simply IS.
So, to the extent that karma is wrapped up in notions of morality and justice, it is wrong - I believe Zen would reject it.
However, I read karma like this: if we put out anger, we foster an angry environment. If we act with love and compassion, we foster love and compassion. This is not a system of justice or morality whereby you will be rewarded or punished in line with your actions, but rather an observation that our motion through this world has consequences.
But we should complicate this view by remembering that we don't fully determine ourselves - the world acts on us, and our way of being in the world is shaped from beyond us (we don't determine our language, we don't determine our culture, etc). Now, to clarify, we aren't fully determined either. Rather we are a dance with the wider world, whereby we create the wider world and that world creates us in turn. (You can get ideas of karma out of this, as well).
Keep in mind, too, that Buddhism is critical of the notion of the subject. (By subject I am referring to the grammatical function "I" in a sentence, such as "I went to the store. I was nice to a person." etc). There is no "I." In the same way that people bracket off certain events in the world, as in the Zen Farmer story, and call them "good" and "bad," we bracket off forms from the wider world and call them "you" and "me." If we clear our vision, we realize there is no "you" and "me" - what we call "you" and "me" are actually nodes within systems of food, waste, and energy. Food comes in, energy comes in, waste goes out, energy goes out. We do not refer to your colon as you, because your colon is part of something larger - a body that we call "you." But that is also narrow minded. "You" are also the world, just as your colon is you.
This is all important to keep in mind when we consider karma, because we are all one, and we all create this world and create each other constantly.
By the way, thinking about things in this way allows us to get a glimpse into a critique of science. This is dangerous to talk about here, because TL.net largely worships science just as people historically (in the West) have worshipped God. But you can see that science is the very process of bracketing and labeling things, looking at things in simple networks of cause and effect. This is the very thing Buddhism, in part, is trying to transcend.
On July 28 2008 11:01 nA.Inky wrote: You have to keep in mind that Buddhism is not a singular discipline. There are different strands with different ideas.
In my understanding, there are kinds of Buddhism that are more oriented towards "the masses," and there are more philosophical strands of buddhism. My interest is primarily in Zen, and yes, it is very influential in my thinking. I've never studied it formally, only gleaned bits here and there.
Zen tends to look beyond good and evil (no coincidence here that I am referencing Nietzsche's book, Beyond Good and Evil - there is some real overlap). It emphasizes that good and evil are interpretations. Consider the koan about the zen farmer: a zen farmer's horses run away one day. The villagers remark what bad luck this is. The zen farmer says "maybe." Next day, the zen farmer finds his horses in the countryside, and several wild horses as well. He brings these home. The villagers say "wow, what great luck!" "Maybe." The next day, the farmer's son is riding one of the wild horses and falls off and is trampled. He is crippled for life. The villagers see this as bad luck. The farmer says "maybe." Later on, an army comes through the village recruiting young people to go to war, but the farmer's son cannot go because he is crippled. Later, news comes back to the village that all the men who were recruited died in battle. The farmer is seen as lucky, but again, to this he would say only "maybe."
And see, this story illustrates that good and bad (good and bad luck, in this case) are situational, and that if we are seeing clearly (without imposing our concepts or limitations on reality) we realize that there is no good and bad. What seems good can be the seed that spawns bad, and the bad may in turn be the seed that spawns good. There really is no good or bad. The world simply IS.
So, to the extent that karma is wrapped up in notions of morality and justice, it is wrong - I believe Zen would reject it.
how can suffering not be considered bad? and peace not be considered good?
no other complaint with your post, enjoyed reading it.
Pointless to say one school is Buddhist and another is not. There is no Buddhism. There is only what people practice and believe. We need to get past the idea of "pure forms." Look at practice. In practice, there are many different Buddhisms. Like BottleAbuser says, some Buddhists worship Buddha. Some Buddhists worship Christ. Some Buddhists are atheistic.
Someone here referred to the laws of cause and effect. In MY undertanding of Zen, cause and effect really don't have a place. Cause and effect is a concept, a gross simplification of reality.
In general, Zen is critical of dualistic thinking, such as natural/supernatural. In this, it has much in common with modern Western philosophy, particularly post-modernism and post-structuralism (I see Zen as having anticipated these developments by many centuries). As to dualisms like the above, to posit a natural and supernatural is to posit the existence of two worlds that bleed into each other. This is nonsense. There is only one world. There may be events that strike us as "magical." But they are still real and still contained within one existence.
As to the "purpose" of Buddhism, well, it is said that the purpose of Zen is purposelessness. This upsets many westerners (as can be seen in this thread). Why would I give up purpose? Well, because purpose comes from desire, and suffering comes from desire. So we give up desire and purpose to give up suffering. BUT - how do you give up purpose - on PURPOSE? We have a paradox. In a very real sense, schools like Zen are teaching us how to escape from prison by not trying to escape from prison. Zen is not about telling you not to fuck or do drugs or make money - it's about learning to "get with yourself." And part of "getting with yourself" is not trying to get with yourself.
I recommend a VERY CLOSE reading of Nietzche's "Beyond Good and Evil" for a more Western explanation of these ideas. He gives the idea there is no singular, coherent subject - "I." Instead, you and I are composed of drives - moral drives, intellectual drives, greedy drives, lustful drives, hungry drives, etc. These are all competing in a kind of interior political system. Now, getting back to Zen, Zen is about learning a kind of harmony in the interior kingdom by not trying to impose order, but also not trying not to impose order.
A student is said to have asked - "how do I give up purpose on purpose?" A zen master is said to have replied "just keep trying for another 5 years."
Travis asks "how can suffering not be considered bad? And peace not considered good?"
Good question. The answer is they CAN be considered those things, but to do so is to bracket off parts of reality and not see the whole picture. Remember the idea that "suffering comes from desire." It is our desire not to experience events that we label "suffering" that makes suffering bad.
Another angle: when people are talking about good and bad, they usually mean Good and Bad, meaning something absolute and universal. But again, the zen farmer story illustrates how what seems to be Good is really a setup for what is Bad, and what is Bad is a setup for what is Good. So we say there is no Good and Bad, only experience. Only reality.
Think of this: a baby is born. Beautiful and sweet. He grows up to be Hitler.
Think of a case from an early episode of Lost: Locke says "see this cocoon? There is a baby moth in there. It will have to struggle for days to get free. I could cut it out of there right now and set it free, but it would not survive. Struggling to get out of the cocoon gives the moth the strength to survive. Struggle is nature's way of making us stronger."
People today are worried about sustainability in an environmental sense. They say we are doing great injustice to each other and to the environment. But consider that if we did find a truly sustainable way of life, so many more people would live to suffer and die. So many more wars might be fought.... Etc.
Consider that the die-off of the human race might mean a glorious paradise for many other lifeforms that would grow up in our place.
In other words, we make judgments on good and bad from a point of reference. Zen is about learning to see beyond "me" and "you." Learning to stop isolating bits of the world from the rest, and instead seeing the big picture, seeing the unity and beauty in all things, even suffering. Remember, death is part of life which is part of death. One does not exist without the other. You cannot isolate beauty from ugliness. Indeed, beauty and ugliness are just interpretations of what IS.
On July 28 2008 11:26 nA.Inky wrote: Travis asks "how can suffering not be considered bad? And peace not considered good?"
Good question. The answer is they CAN be considered those things, but to do so is to bracket off parts of reality and not see the whole picture. Remember the idea that "suffering comes from desire." It is our desire not to experience events that we label "suffering" that makes suffering bad.
Another angle: when people are talking about good and bad, they usually mean Good and Bad, meaning something absolute and universal. But again, the zen farmer story illustrates how what seems to be Good is really a setup for what is Bad, and what is Bad is a setup for what is Good. So we say there is no Good and Bad, only experience. Only reality.
Think of this: a baby is born. Beautiful and sweet. He grows up to be Hitler.
Think of a case from an early episode of Lost: Locke says "see this cocoon? There is a baby moth in there. It will have to struggle for days to get free. I could cut it out of there right now and set it free, but it would not survive. Struggling to get out of the cocoon gives the moth the strength to survive. Struggle is nature's way of making us stronger."
People today are worried about sustainability in an environmental sense. They say we are doing great injustice to each other and to the environment. But consider that if we did find a truly sustainable way of life, so many more people would live to suffer and die. So many more wars might be fought.... Etc.
Consider that the die-off of the human race might mean a glorious paradise for many other lifeforms that would grow up in our place.
In other words, we make judgments on good and bad from a point of reference. Zen is about learning to see beyond "me" and "you." Learning to stop isolating bits of the world from the rest, and instead seeing the big picture, seeing the unity and beauty in all things, even suffering. Remember, death is part of life which is part of death. One does not exist without the other. You cannot isolate beauty from ugliness. Indeed, beauty and ugliness are just interpretations of what IS.
Ok I agree with everything you say, but I have to ask. Doesn't taking a truly objective view like that make one callous to the suffering of others?
It's all well and nice that we can say "labels are just labels - they describe imperfectly the state of what is." But we use them for a reason - they're useful, they save time, they help us function more easily and simplify problems into tractable decisions.
They also lead us into erroneous (hm... kind of dangerous word to use here) decisions. So we keep trying to refine our labels and classifications and reduce the error rate. Then someone comes along and says "the labels are inherently flawed, as they cannot completely capture what is." But the proposed alternative is... what? We can't consider everything in a reasonable amount of time. Or go the opposite direction, just do anything because nothing is truly "bad."
I don't think it makes one unfeeling to quantify others' suffering. There's an incredible amount of tragedy out there, and expanding our limits instead of being saturated very early at "how horrible. That's unthinkable" allows us to contemplate more accurately the state of the world. Am I still making sense?
On July 28 2008 11:34 BottleAbuser wrote: I don't think it makes one unfeeling to quantify others' suffering. There's an incredible amount of tragedy out there, and expanding our limits instead of being saturated very early at "how horrible. That's unthinkable" allows us to contemplate more accurately the state of the world. Am I still making sense?
I don't know any more. I suppose it started with "doesn't an objective view make you callous to others' suffering?"
Maybe you won't go crazy emo whenever you see something bad happen any more if you're more aware of the shit that's out there, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I believe myself capable of making moral decisions, which take into account others' suffering as equal to my own interests, despite not being emotionally involved.
Travis asks if the intense relativism in strands of Zen might make people callous.
Good question too! I can't answer for anyone but myself. What do you think?
In my view, in this context, zen teaches humility. Can you see how this might be so? Again, consider the zen farmer story. Notice particularly how humble the farmer is. Something as (deceptively) basic as good and bad, and he admits he doesn't know which is which.
This humility causes me to try to see things from more than just my perspective. I also see that because of how small I am, and how the world works, I can never live in such a way that I cause no pain to others. But I better understand the pain and suffering of others, and I better understand my own pain and suffering. So I try to live with compassion (which is acting towards others as if they were yourself - and again, part of the "logical" conclusion of Zen thinking is that we are all one - you ARE me, and I AM you). But I also live with an attitude of acceptance - there will always be pain and suffering in the world, and I can choose to see that as evil, or I can learn to see it as beautiful. To some degree, I can choose how I respond to pain and suffering).
People who have the enlightenment experience (via meditation or via psychedelic drugs) report a feeling of pure peace and the sense that love flows through all things and that the universe is a manifestation of pure love. I won't claim that I've felt that exactly - I've felt similar things, though - but it is something of a project for me. (Do note that I'm not a Zen Buddhist or a Buddhist at all, I just borrow from it and respect it greatly).
Reminds me of Heinlein's Pantheistic Solipsism. Ah this is getting way over my head; I'm a simple guy who plays games and only questions the world when stuff gets in the way of that.
Thank you BuGzlToOnl. I wish you luck with the book. I recommend the translation by Walter Kauffman. On the subject of Zen, I recommend books by Alan Watts. Some of his texts can be found online. He is very accessible. --------------------------- BottleAbuser says: It's all well and nice that we can say "labels are just labels - they describe imperfectly the state of what is." But we use them for a reason - they're useful, they save time, they help us function more easily and simplify problems into tractable decisions.
They also lead us into erroneous (hm... kind of dangerous word to use here) decisions. So we keep trying to refine our labels and classifications and reduce the error rate. Then someone comes along and says "the labels are inherently flawed, as they cannot completely capture what is." But the proposed alternative is... what? We can't consider everything in a reasonable amount of time. Or go the opposite direction, just do anything because nothing is truly "bad." ----------------------------- Ok, but it could be pointed out that "useful" and "erroneous" are themselves provisional perspectives. What is useful? Why?
You acknowledge the danger in your words. Good for you!
To many people, this Earth is useful. Slaves are useful.
We also fall into dualistic thinking - nature/artifice good/evil useful/worthless innocent/corrupt pure/impure us/them. These ALL have done great violence at one time or another! Think about it!
Our dualistic thinking has the effect of disintegration on the world. It is part of a process that you can call "othering" in which one comes to see themselves as separate from "others," and in a sense, in opposition to others.
Think of how nature is used (this is a good one to use with you, Bottle, because you recognize that there is no artifice - ALL is nature.)
Nature is seen as that which is good (the fallacious appeal to nature). So homosexuals are labeled evil because they are "unnatural." Capitalism is justified because it is seen as "natural:"
Nature is seen as that which is bad or inferior. "We must rise up above nature - we are not mere animals!" So this lends itself to the most insane of imperial tendencies. We must CONQUER nature, and TRANSFORM it to that which is good - Human Reason must improve upon the natural world.
Etc.
I say all this, but bear in mind that I too use labels. The best I can say - keeping in mind again that I'm not a Zen practitioner - is that we must be humble and careful in our thinking. Nietzsche does a lot to deal with dualistic thinking, and the more recent philosopher Derrida - who is very difficult to read - deals with language in this sense even more thoroughly.
Out of all "religions", I'm likely closer to Buddhism than anything else because it's more of a way of life than anything. With that said, don't get any holy misconceptions about its practitioners either. The people that created it and practiced it throughout history abused it for their own political purposes, just like every other religion.
Inky, Zen Buddhism isn't about complete relativity like that. In some ways it is, but it still follows closely with dharma. Suffering is real, but to move further towards enlightenment you must not crave an answer to suffering. There's also a code of ethics in there as well, so good and bad exist.
Zen meditation is about concentrating on not thinking, so philosophizing about it gets you nowhere.
If you want real relativity of good and bad, you should look at Confucianism but that was crafted and abused for political purposes probably more than anything else besides Hindu.
EDIT: I also think it's a bit silly to get advice or "commit" to religions without actually practicing it. By that I mean most Americans who call themselves Buddhists only understand select bits and pieces and while it may help them in their lives, they're really not practicing Buddhists. They're picking and choosing what they already feel is accurate, which means they're using a completely separate code of morals or ideas. In that way, they could just as easily call themselves Zoroastrians or Sufi or anything else.
if you do good things in this life - your next life reincarnation will be better
at least that's what i got out of the Journey to the West
for example the monk Sanzang was the reincarnation of 10 lives of cultivating his conduct.
the other common type of karma that occurs in one's lifetime is insignificant really - although it does affect the Positive and Negative levels, etc.
i'm not buddhist but in china if u pass a monastery or anything you will worship the statues and light incense no matter if you are buddhist or not
i think buddhist is one of the most sensible religions - it has a much better 'track record' than the other ' Tumultuous Three ' lol christianity judaism and islam
in the old times people did pray to buddhas and bodhisattvas, arhats, etc. but nowadays in its modern form most people are just taking lessons out of buddhism just like confucianism - etc. although buddhism has some religious elements while confucianism is mostly composed of philosophivcal elements
But as the Monkey King Victorious Fighting Buddha Sun WuKong said (fictional btw), and which illustrates the peaceful nature of buddhism and it's sensibility:
"I hope that you will combine the three teachings by honouring both the Buddhist clergy and the way of Taoism, and also by educating men of talent in the Confucian tradition. I can guarentee that this will make your kingdom secure forever."
And if applied to modern day it would probably include all religions and make the world secure forever
Karma within your lifetime can be a healthy concept, although you shouldn't be doing the right thing because you fear it could bite you back. You should be doing the right thing because you feel it's the right thing.
Karmic reincarnation is fucking stupid. You can believe in it if you'd like, but it was designed as a tool to keep slaves as slaves and aristocrats as aristocrats. And it was damn effective. Just like Scientology was created as a scam to steal celebrities' money.
Jibba, of your comments directed at me, the only criticism I will concede to you is that Zen is indeed a focused discipline that aims to get past conceptual thought via meditation (I'm not sure, though, that this is quite the same as not thinking), and so in that regard is less philosophical in the way that I have been in this thread. Still, implicit in the practice are all the things I have spoken of.
With regard to your comment about a moral system within Zen, I will again bring your attention to the Zen Farmer koan that I recited above. There are further koans that you might search out that specifically speak of reaching a state of mind where one stops perceiving good and evil. True, in practice, certain behaviors will be encouraged and others not, and in this sense, you could say there is a moral system to it. Still, though, even beyond the example I've already given, you must admit that morals are conceptual in nature, and given that Zen is largely about transcending conceptual thought, it is also simultaneously about transcending morality.
I wasn't really criticizing you so much as I was correcting. You transcend past worrying about bad things (sufferings) but the good and bad morals still exist. Meditation and practice are two separate parts to it. Good and bad are built into dharma which is a heavy part of Zen Buddhism and karma is included as well. While meditating you reach a state of mind where you no longer think of those things, but you still adhere to their very well defined principles of good and bad. Right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
You may not agree with that which is perfectly fine and I think moral relativism has a good amount of weight as well, but good and bad actions/thoughts/etc. do exist in Zen Buddhism.
The "maybe" proverb shows that it can be futile to label things as good and bad, but I don't think it dismisses them all together. It shows that all things are combination of good and bad. Every action has good consequences and bad consequences.