Thoughts on Buddhism

[Abracadabra]

Is it not interesting to you that the domain and limitations of science have been steadily harped upon by a few centuries of magical thinkers such as yourself, who have, since the very beginning, been forced to retreat from their claims or become charlatans as science shows itself to be able to cross those boundaries the wishful thinkers thought impassable, to establish order and explanations in areas that were "not the domain of science".

That has never happened with respect to the "domain of science" that I'm referring to.

The "domain of science" that I'm referring to is a direct result, and an innate property, of the very method of scientific inquiry.

The "domain of science" that you are eluding to is a totally different concept altogether. That's merely a subjective view of science that doesn't take into account what science actually does.

If Quantum Mechanics it true, then the "Domain of Science" ends there.

The only way for science to progress beyond that would be for Quantum Mechanics to fail, or at least be 'incomplete' as Albert Einstein suggested.

But in that case, all science would be doing is hoping beyond hope that their current understand of things is wrong.

[Bgood]

Human consciousness is a mysterious thing. Even if "god" exists or not, the human mind and body combination is a miracle I don't care what all the naysayers and cynical atheists say. I don't think many of them have a very good imagination. They think too literally. I am sure they are good people, but they may restrict themselves to logic and computation too much, which is a relatively new social condition. Buddhism is counter-cultural just like John Lennon and Yoko Ono was. They said "Screw the government, Bring down the establishment!" WHY? because it is all an illusion.

Amazing does not equal miraculous. There isn't any naysaying or cynicism in that statement. My imagination is doing fine, thank you.

Buddhism is counter-cultural only if you come from an area that is not now or has not in the past been dominated by Buddhism, which was very much part of the state (in a variety of states) for a very, very long time. The buddhist being the fucking King,ordained by the god-damned cosmos no less! Buddhists definitely don't peddle "screw the government". For the majority of the history of Buddhism neither they (nor the states in question) could imagine a government that did not contain Buddhism. Now that they find themselves on the outs they're selling counter-culture to the new crop are they?

I'm getting the feeling that you, like any religious nutter, know a lot about your faith's myths, but not much about your faith's reality.

I am intrigued with all of your ideas and intellectual argument. It is very informed and educated. I give all of you alot of respect for that,, honestly. I really don't know what to say but that Buddhism is very adaptative and evolutionary in the modern here and now form. It is a peaceful method for undertanding the self and the world. I personally don't think that Buddhism played a very big role in government or politics in Asia throughout the centuries, like Christianity did in Europe. Most of the buddhist monestaries were pretty well isolated up in the mountains. I don't see how any buddhist "doctrine" justfied any abuses of kings or rulers back in the day. Even China's worst dictator in the modern era, Mao Zedong, was not a buddhist by any means. I don't see how Buddhism can support any social mind control propaganda or governmental oppresssion. It explicitly points to individualism and self empowerment. It would be very difficult to twist buddhism into political media.

[Epimethean]

A bit of reading:

http://www.sangam.org/articles/view/?id=118

No religion is bad but by the actions of its adherents. They are all fictions, so it devolves to the interpretations of said fictions by their respective audiences to "define" the religion for the rest of the world.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am intrigued with all of your ideas and intellectual argument. It is very informed and educated. I give all of you alot of respect for that,, honestly. I really don't know what to say but that Buddhism is very adaptative and evolutionary in the modern here and now form. It is a peaceful method for undertanding the self and the world. I personally don't think that Buddhism played a very big role in government or politics in Asia throughout the centuries, like Christianity did in Europe. Most of the buddhist monestaries were pretty well isolated up in the mountains. I don't see how any buddhist "doctrine" justfied any abuses of kings or rulers back in the day. Even China's worst dictator in the modern era, Mao Zedong, was not a buddhist by any means. I don't see how Buddhism can support any social mind control propaganda or governmental oppresssion. It explicitly points to individualism and self empowerment. It would be very difficult to twist buddhism into political media.

http://histories.cambridge.org/browse_ch...-east_asia
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Warfare-M...0195394844

You may not see it, but that hasn't stopped resourceful people from seeing it, developing it, and exploiting it, for centuries. What buddhism is said to be (or what you believe buddhism to be), and what it is and has been, might be entirely different things. Buddhist ad copy is still ad copy. The powers that be can not ignore the potential influence and power of a belief system. They never have, probably never will. I'm not certain how you got the impression that buddhism wasn't tied to the hip with the history of asian states? Let's just talk about Tibet, a fuedal theocracy with a god-king at the helm (complete with a caste system, serfs, and brutal tribal customs-that were enforced by mandate from the god king- for the majority of it's history). The most standout example of buddhism in the western experience was not just connected to politics...it was politics.

(let me just add here, that the supposed reincarnation of a celestially ordained emperor with substantial worldly holdings -up to and including human beings- telling me that wealth and material increase is illusory, or that I should not seek it, is the height of irony to me. Where was this sage wisdom when he was increasing his holdings through military and civil action over his many reincarnations?)

[Carnavon]

The first being that Jesus was asking the Father to forgive these men. That contradicts John 5:22 and shows that Jesus himself was not aware that he was to be the sole judge of men.

John 5:22 is Jesus’ own reported words and not John’s. And you will also notice from Scripture that Jesus does the Father’will ( Joh 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.)

By asking the Father to forgive is thus accepting the Father’s will as the determining factor. Seen in perspective then- Jesus will execute judgement in accordance with the will of the Father. Jesus also acts in accordance with his own command to “pray for those that persecute you” and also in accordance with how Jesus teaches us to pray. When we pray for our enemies, it is a reflection of what is in our hearts.

To imply that “ignorance” is accepted as an excuse is a wrong interpretation of the “for they do not know what they are doing” as it contrary to the whole principle of grace where we are not justified by what we know, but by grace without merit. Supporting evidence from Scripture for your view will be appreciated. The whole of Scripture has an opposing view.

The second blatant contradiction is that Jesus is forgiving these men based on a principle of his observation or belief that these men are not understanding what they are doing wrong. (i.e. They know not what they do).
Therefore, Jesus himself at this point in these fables is contradicting John 3:18 that anyone who does not believe in the name of the son of God is condemned already. Clearly Jesus is prepared to forgive these men even though they do not recognize the divinity of Jesus, nor are they asking to be forgiven.

Your assumption (unwarranted from the words in the passage) is that their sins are forgiven. You will notice that it is Jesus’ petition to the Father. Yes, Jesus understands that they are “blinded”, and cannot see. Take the example of an “unbeliever”. He/she rejects Christ because they “do not know what they are doing”. If they knew, they would not reject Christ. This is consistent with
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Your interpretation of a single verse is thus inconsistent with Scripture and the trap that many cults and heretics fall into.
The view that Jesus is making “intercession” for those that persecute Him is consistent with the rest of the Bible, consistent with Jesus' own commandments to us to pray for those that persecute us, and in fulfilment of prophecy. (Isa 53:12 and makes intercession for the transgressors. )

In fact, John 3:18 isn't even John quoting Jesus, it's just John narrating his own personal opinions.

That will be interesting to find out what your sources are for suggesting this and on what basis he/she/they comes to this conclusion.

No problem reading as I enjoy it as it takes one out of your "comfort zone" and question the things that you have always accepted and sometimes never questioned or viewed from another perspective.

May you have a great week ahead!

[The Grand Nudger]

If Quantum Mechanics it true, then the "Domain of Science" ends there.

Wait, what? So quantum mechanics is not science? It's beyond the domain of science? I think you use the word quantum as a stand in for magic. It's the trendy buzzword nowadays. Quantum this quantum that. I've thought this from the moment you first used the word, and every post up to this point has been re-enforcing that initial assessment.

Or do you mean to say that quantum mechanics is the very limit of science, that it goes that far and no further? What's further, got a map, maybe a picture of the vast expanse beyond?

[Abracadabra]

John 5:22 is Jesus’ own reported words and not John’s. And you will also notice from Scripture that Jesus does the Father’will ( Joh 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.)

Well then 5:30 is a blatant contradiction to 5:22 then. If Jesus has no will of his own but can only do the will of the Father then clearly it would still be the Father who is executing his will through Jesus and Jesus would be nothing more than a mindless puppet of the Father.

Therefore it would make no sense to say that the Father judgeth no man, if the Father is actually judging people by forcing his will through Jesus.

So it's just yet another blatant contradiction.

Mover, if Jesus was a misunderstood Mahayana Buddhist these rumors can easily be made to make sense. A Buddhist would say that you are the judge. In other words, if we think of ourselves as children of the universe then all judgement has been bestowed upon us. And will we be judged as we judge because we are the only ones who pass judgement on anything in the first place.

Trying to make this into a picture of a demigod who is executing judgment on behalf of Zeus-like Fatherly God makes no sense at all. This is why the idea that Jesus was a misunderstood Mahayana Buddhist make so much more sense than the New Testament superstitious rumors that Jesus was a demigod.

By asking the Father to forgive is thus accepting the Father’s will as the determining factor. Seen in perspective then- Jesus will execute judgement in accordance with the will of the Father. Jesus also acts in accordance with his own command to “pray for those that persecute you” and also in accordance with how Jesus teaches us to pray. When we pray for our enemies, it is a reflection of what is in our hearts.

No. If you insist on the supporting the demigod rumors of Jesus you end up with a myriad of irresolvable contradictions.

First you have the contradiction that I have already pointed out. It would be utterly meaningless to say that all judgment had been committed to Jesus if Jesus still had to seek the Father's approval for every judgment he makes. That would just be the Father judging through a marionette doll named Jesus. It would actually be a lie to say that "The Father judgeth no man" in that case since the Father would be the ultimate judge and Jesus would merely be a powerless puppet who would not be permitted to judge anyone on his own.

All you've done is rape Jesus of the power to judge anyone and hand it right back to the Father. So your apologetics here are nonsense.

Secondly, even if we accept your absurd apologetics here and allow the Father to be the ultimate judge judging everyone through a Jesus who has no will of his own you still have a major problem. Here you would have Jesus asking the Father to forgive people for they know not what they do because Jesus himself feels that this is a more righteous way to judge people.

Then you'd have to have the Father disagreeing with Jesus' sense of righteousness and saying, "No son, I'm not going to judge them as you would judge them, but instead I'm going to trump your judgment with my superior will.

So you end up with a Jesus who has a totally different sense of righteousness from the Father. Jesus obviously feels that it's righteous to not judge people who aren't aware of what they are doing wrong.

So all your apologetic argument does is pit Jesus against the Father.

You'd have a rebellious Jesus arguing with his Father about what constitutes a righteous judgment.

This is precisely why these demigod superstitions cannot be made to make sense.

It can't be made to work. These scriptures are as broken as they can possibly be with absolutely no hope of every resurrecting them because they are carved in stone via these ancient fables. You can't change the fable. It is what it is, and it's clearly absurd and self-contradicting.

The Bible is broken forever and it can never be repaired.

To imply that “ignorance” is accepted as an excuse is a wrong interpretation of the “for they do not know what they are doing” as it contrary to the whole principle of grace where we are not justified by what we know, but by grace without merit. Supporting evidence from Scripture for your view will be appreciated. The whole of Scripture has an opposing view.

You're almost right and that's precisely why these scriptures are forever broken.

They are indeed broken precisely because Jesus believes that it's righteous to forgive people for ignorance. And that flies in the face of many other claims being made by scriptures.

However, where you're wrong is when you way, the "whole" scripture has an opposing view that's not true. Jesus had also said that if any man hear his words and not believe him he will not judge them. So he had already stated earlier that to not believe in Jesus, and to not believe in his words is not grounds for judgement.

John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

This verse also flies in the face of John 3:18. Because Jesus is clearly stating here that to believe him or his words is not important. Yet John is proclaiming in 3:18 that it is important to believe in the name of the "Son of God".

So these broken scriptures are just riddled with endless contradictions.

Now, when I point this out Christians naturally toss the very next verse in my face, as "proof" that there's no way out of their hateful cult,...

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

The Christians claim here that if Jesus doesn't get you the Father will!

But that's not what Jesus was saying here. He wasn't saying that the Father would judge anyone. He was saying that the WORDS he has spoken shall be the judgement.

And that falls perfectly in harmony with Jesus having been a Mahayana Buddhist. Because the words that Jesus taught were the laws of Karma. Therefore if you fail to maintain, right thought, right action, and right speech, as Jesus taught you will create karma that will indeed be your nemesis.

So this actually indicates that Jesus was indeed speaking in terms of karma and definitely not speaking in terms of being a demigod who came to judge the world. In fact, he clearly states that he did not come to judge the world. Totally flying in the face of John 5:22.

The Christian myths that Jesus was the demigod son of the God of Abraham have no merit at all.

Your assumption (unwarranted from the words in the passage) is that their sins are forgiven. You will notice that it is Jesus’ petition to the Father. Yes, Jesus understands that they are “blinded”, and cannot see. Take the example of an “unbeliever”. He/she rejects Christ because they “do not know what they are doing”. If they knew, they would not reject Christ. This is consistent with
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Now your just jumping all over the whole cannon in a desperate attempt to try to justify the contradictions in the book of John. Moreover, your now appealing to highly questionable scriptures that proclaim that this God is a deceitful God who actually hides things from people on purpose.

In fact, if you believe that hateful rhetoric then you must also believe that there exist people whom this God will not forgive under any circumstances. Since he has hidden his truths from them. And that flies in the very face of the Christian ideal that anyone is eligible to receive the "Grace of Christ".

When you run around digging up filth like this all you are doing is striving your best to create an truly hateful and unforgiving God who is so untrustworthy and deceitful that even he pulls the wool over the eyes of people and prevents them from seeing the truth.

That itself right there is just another area where these scriptures are broken. They demand that a supposedly righteous benevolent God is a deceiving trickster who hides truth from people.

What kind of an evil demon would hide truth from people.

This is the problem with this whole Christian cult, in order to maintain a hateful God who condemns people for merely not believing in the cult they have no choice but to make the God himself into an evil demon.

So not only am I not impressed with your feeble apologists here, but your apologetics in this case only end up showing me that your God is totally untrustworthy, deceitful, and a demonic being that isn't worthy of being loved. I would personally kick anyone that deceitful out of my home and tell them to never come back.

Your interpretation of a single verse is thus inconsistent with Scripture and the trap that many cults and heretics fall into.

No. The verse is crystal clear. There is no "interpretation" required.

"Forgive them for they know not what they do".

It's pretty straight forward. How are you going to interpret that into something else?

The view that Jesus is making “intercession” for those that persecute Him is consistent with the rest of the Bible, consistent with Jesus' own commandments to us to pray for those that persecute us, and in fulfilment of prophecy. (Isa 53:12 and makes intercession for the transgressors. )

Not it's not. You can't apply those things to Jesus precisely because of John 5:22. Jesus is supposed to be the judge of mortal men. He should not need to plead with the Father to forgive people.

These fables are asinine, and your feeble apologetics are precisely that. Nothing more than feeble excuses to try to save broken scriptures.

You've already had to make a completely mindless puppet out of Jesus by proclaiming that ultimately he can't judge anyone and all judgement is done through Jesus by the will of the Father.

So you're just in completely blatant denial of what these stories even claim.

You're not 'fixing' the scriptures. All you're doing is denying them and pretending that they aren't self-contradicting.

In fact, John 3:18 isn't even John quoting Jesus, it's just John narrating his own personal opinions.

That will be interesting to find out what your sources are for suggesting this and on what basis he/she/they comes to this conclusion.

It's right there in the text. It's in the wording. You can't miss it.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

This is clearly John offering his own narrative commentary. It's clear as day. He refers to Jesus as him not as me. So this is clearly not being written as a quote. It's written as a commentary by the author.

This is one thing that Christianss are horrible at. They act like everything in the New Testament can be viewed as the "Word of Jesus". They even often quote Paul and act like they've just quoted Jesus.

I might add that Paul wrote about 75% of the scriptures in the New Testament and all of his writings are necessarily commentary. He doesn't even claim to quote Jesus directly, other than possibly as a vision he claims to have had.

If you're going to get into the business of apologizing for these stories the first thing you need to do is recognize which parts of them are commentary by the authors, and which parts are being offered as supposed direct quotes of Jesus.

I personally don't even trust the "quotes" to be verbatim and correct. In fact, it would be utterly foolish to do so. These authors are clearly making up these quotes based on their own biased views. Changing just a few words only slightly can imply a totally different meaning that the man Jesus might have actually meant.

Even Jesus was said to have told his very own disciples that they do not understand what he is saying. And we're supposed to believe that the authors of these fables understood?

No problem reading as I enjoy it as it takes one out of your "comfort zone" and question the things that you have always accepted and sometimes never questioned or viewed from another perspective.

Well, I'm glad that I'm helping you to see things you might not have otherwise recognized. I'm sure that as you continue to think about these things you will eventually begin to realize that these stories are absurd as written and trying to maintain them verbatim can never be made to work.

Just like you had to reduce Jesus to a mindless marionette doll who is being operated by the Father's will in order to justify John 5:33 that states that the Father Judgeth no man and that all judgment has been committed to the son.

I hope you can see that even using your apologetic excuse for this doesn't help anything. All you'd be doing is having the Father be the ultimate Judge though a puppet Jesus. So the Father would still be the ultimate judge which flies in the very face of the words "The Father judgeth no man".

So your apologetics themselves are a self-contradiction. You haven't repaired broken scriptures, all you've done is created broken apologetics. And you've reduced Jesus to being nothing more than a mindless marionette doll who isn't permitted to judge anyone on his own.

May you have a great week ahead!

You too.

---

Wait, what? So quantum mechanics is not science? It's beyond the domain of science? I think you use the word quantum as a stand in for magic. It's the trendy buzzword nowadays. Quantum this quantum that. I've thought this from the moment you first used the word, and every post up to this point has been re-enforcing that initial assessment.

No I'm not saying anything like that at all.

Or do you mean to say that quantum mechanics is the very limit of science, that it goes that far and no further? What's further, got a map, maybe a picture of the vast expanse beyond?

Yes, this is far more along the lines of what I'm saying.

Quantum Mechanics itself predicts that the observational and mathematical methods of science must necessarily break down at the quantum level.

So this is a prediction of the theory itself that the scientific method based on a quantitative picture of the world must end at the quantum level.

You say,

What's further, got a map, maybe a picture of the vast expanse beyond?

Actually I do have suggestions for how to move beyond the traditional limitations of the scientific method. In fact, I also have suggestions for how to move beyond our current traditional mathematical formalism. However, these idea require a radical new way of thinking which most scientists and mathematicians are not yet ready to embrace.

As far as their being territory beyond the quantum level that exists but is out of reach of current scientific and mathematical methods, that's pretty much a given that has been well accepted by scientists. In fact, String Theory is the current physicist approach to try to break through that barrier. It hasn't yet been successful, but it keeps making a lot of promises.

People who are also studying "quantum information" and the possibly of "quantum computing" also clearly recognize that there is more beyond the quantum veil.

Not only are the convinced that such "quantum information" exists, but they also have very sound reasons for believing that quantum information and quantum computing actually have the potential to be far more productive that our current style of classical computing.

~~~~

In short, if you imagine that the quantum fields are the "Mind of God", what scientists and mathematicians are discovering is that the "Mind of God" is capable of vastly greater computing power than a human brain.

It's not restricted by time. It's not restricted by distinct binary operations of merely either ones or zeros. The Mind of God can think in terms of cubits. Which are superpositions of ones and zeros unbounded by time or space.

This totally boggles our minds. Yet this is what the people who study quantum information and quantum computing are discovering.

So, no, I can't give you a precise map to that terrain. If I could I'd be the current 'Albert Einstein' of the modern age.

But the fact that such a terrain exists is pretty well established by those who are studying quantum information and quantum computing.

So as far as I'm concerned that's a given.

[Angrboda]

There's a reason why people "restrict themselves to logic and computation," because several centuries of productive science as a result of doing so has yielded more useful truths than several millennia of navel gazing.

That's certainly true, and it would require a fool to not recognize that truth.

However, at the very same time there are equally logical reasons for recognizing the limitations and domain of the sciences.

If you stand back and look at science you can clearly see what it does. Science looks at the observable universe and describes how it behaves in terms of quantitative or mathematical relationships.

Period. That's all that science does.

Science does not explain, or even attempt to explain, why there exists a universe that obeys quantitative relationships in the first place. That is just assumed to be the case because that's what we observe. It doesn't need to be proven or explained, all it needs to be is experienced and that is sufficient proof that it exists.

However, science has now come to a place where it has actually shown us that this method of observation and explanation must necessarily break down at the quantum level. This is precisely the predictions of the most scientific theory to date - Quantum Mechanics. The mathematics of Quantum Mechanics demand via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that we can never go beneath the quantum level. We even have reasons to believe that space, time, and even mathematics as we understand it may very well all break down beneath the quantum level. Yet we have sound reasons for believing that there exists some sort of 'reality' beneath the substrate of what we see as a physical universe.

(emphasis added)

It now turns out that even this renunciation is not entirely satisfactory. Even if quantum mechanics is considered to be no more than a set of rules, it is still in conflict with a view of the world many people would consider obvious or natural. This world view is based on three assumptions, or premises that must be accepted without proof. One is realism, the doctrine that regularities in observed phenomena are caused by some physical reality whose existence is independent of human observers. The second premise holds that inductive inference is a valid mode of reasoning and can be applied freely, so that legitimate conclusions can be drawn from consistent observations. The third premise is called Einstein separability or Einstein locality, and it states that no influence of any kind can propagate faster than the speed of light. The three premises, which are often assumed to have the status of well-established truths, or even self-evident truths, form the basis of what I shall call local realistic theories of nature. An argument derived from these premises leads to an explicit prediction for the results of a certain class of experiments in the physics of elementary particles. The rules of quantum mechanics can also be employed to calculate the results of these experiments. Significantly, the two predictions differ, and so either the local realistic theories or quantum mechanics must be wrong.

The experiments in question were first proposed as "thought experiments," intended for the imagination only. In the past few years, however, several versions of them have been carried out with real apparatus. Although not all the findings are consistent with one another, most of them support the predictions of quantum mechanics, and it now seems that unless some extraordinary coincidence has distorted the results the quantum-mechanical predictions will be confirmed. It follows that the local realistic theories are almost certainly in error. The three premises on which those theories are founded are essential to a common-sense interpretation of the world, and most people would give them up only with reluctance; nevertheless, it appears that at least one of them will have to be abandoned or modified or in some way constrained.

D'Espagnat, Bernard, "The Quantum Theory and Reality," target="_blank" rel="nofollow">

It would appear, at least to my untrained mind, that your beliefs are in conflict with known facts.

[The Grand Nudger]

How, precisely, do you reckon that science or scientists determined that there was something beyond the "veil", do they have scientific reasons or something else? If they have a scientific explanation for why they suggest that something is beyond that veil then it sounds like it's still within the domain of science Abra, or.....you're misinformed.

[Epimethean]

Just LOVE it when the mystics suggest they have the means to take science to the beyond. What a crock. Too many of them see the "flaws" in scientific thinking-with zero understanding of why it is the way it is.