Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
why do you need hard evidence
to focus on the principles of Buddhism?
No, no, no.
For me to say that enlightenment is a fact...I need hard evidence.
For me to say it is true that there were all those Buddhas in the past...I need hard evidence. Take for example the first Buddha -- Taṇhaṅkara. In the Pali canon he is said to have existed "Innumerable aeons ago". When he was king "he reigned over his country for ten thousand years", and in all, he lived for "100,000 years". Do you believe all that? Could you show me even the tiniest bit of hard evidence for any of that? No, you can't. So if a Buddhist tells me all that, yes, I want hard evidence.
This (https://www.pbs.org/edens/thailand/buddhism.htm) from PBS gives a pretty good, very basic summary of the primary principles of Buddhism. You'll notice that there's a lot there that doesn't depend at all on enlightenment being real. Is life made up of a great deal of suffering? Yes. We can see and experience that. Are there general principles (many as outlined in the Tipitaka, but probably many other techniques, as well) that can lead an individual to reduce his or her own suffering, and the suffering of others? Yes, and those can explored by any person, and may not be the same for every person. We can do those things whether the ultimate 'level' of enlightenment is ever reached.
There are two things that I was told by monks that have stayed with me. The first was when I was sitting with four Thai Buddhist monks talking after the evening meditation ritual (one was the abbot of the temple). I asked them if any of them anticipated enlightenment at the end of this lifetime. They thought that was actually quite humorous. That no, if it ever happened to them, it would only be after many lifetimes.
The other thing that stuck me was in a conversation with one monk, and -- although I have forgotten now the specific thing that we were discussing -- I said that I didn't really believe in whatever that was. And the monk replied (paraphrased), "It is okay not to believe that. But don't totally throw it away. Perhaps later you will come back to that".
If someone says something in any religion is fact, they need to have hard evidence.
If someone wants to discuss principles -- and principles are not fact -- that is fine. It is good to do so. It is a way of figuring out the validity of teachings (back to the Kalama Sutra) and trying to decide how one as an individual may incorporate that principle into their journey.
the evidence of any path of religion and spirituality is when a person puts it into practice and is transformed by it.
I know a person who turned to catholicism and found it transformational...until he dumped it.
Then he turned to born-again christianity and found that transformational. I don't know if he is still following that.
Not all transformations are good. Would you say the transformations led by Jim Jones were valid?
I know a person who turned to catholicism and found it transformational...until he dumped it. Then he turned to born-again christianity and found that transformational. I don't know if he is still following that. Not all transformations are good. Would you say the transformations led by Jim Jones were valid?
in your own practice of Buddhism, when you put the principles into practice, which principles and practices have you found to be most helpful and beneficial and positive for you in your own life? and in what ways, what changes have you seen?
For me to say that enlightenment is a fact...I need hard evidence.
For me to say it is true that there were all those Buddhas in the past...I need hard evidence. Take for example the first Buddha -- Taṇhaṅkara. In the Pali canon he is said to have existed "Innumerable aeons ago". When he was king "he reigned over his country for ten thousand years", and in all, he lived for "100,000 years". Do you believe all that? Could you show me even the tiniest bit of hard evidence for any of that? No, you can't. So if a Buddhist tells me all that, yes, I want hard evidence.
This (https://www.pbs.org/edens/thailand/buddhism.htm) from PBS gives a pretty good, very basic summary of the primary principles of Buddhism. You'll notice that there's a lot there that doesn't depend at all on enlightenment being real. Is life made up of a great deal of suffering? Yes. We can see and experience that. Are there general principles (many as outlined in the Tipitaka, but probably many other techniques, as well) that can lead an individual to reduce his or her own suffering, and the suffering of others? Yes, and those can explored by any person, and may not be the same for every person. We can do those things whether the ultimate 'level' of enlightenment is ever reached.
There are two things that I was told by monks that have stayed with me. The first was when I was sitting with four Thai Buddhist monks talking after the evening meditation ritual (one was the abbot of the temple). I asked them if any of them anticipated enlightenment at the end of this lifetime. They thought that was actually quite humorous. That no, if it ever happened to them, it would only be after many lifetimes.
The other thing that stuck me was in a conversation with one monk, and -- although I have forgotten now the specific thing that we were discussing -- I said that I didn't really believe in whatever that was. And the monk replied (paraphrased), "It is okay not to believe that. But don't totally throw it away. Perhaps later you will come back to that".
If someone says something in any religion is fact, they need to have hard evidence.
If someone wants to discuss principles -- and principles are not fact -- that is fine. It is good to do so. It is a way of figuring out the validity of teachings (back to the Kalama Sutra) and trying to decide how one as an individual may incorporate that principle into their journey.
bold above
how does disparaging other people reduce suffering?
how does expressing disapproval and disdain (for instance towards prayer, chanting, and ritual) reduce suffering?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-17-2021 at 09:05 AM..
bold above
how does disparaging other people reduce suffering?
how does expressing disapproval and disdain (for instance towards prayer, chanting, and ritual) reduce suffering?
When you have disparaged posts, has that reduced your suffering?
You know, I think you have a wrong impression of what it means to be a Buddhist. First, it's a very individualized path...not the same path for everyone. I would liken it to the times in my life when I have had blood pressure issues. As a former science teacher, I tend to be a data collector. So when my blood pressure or pulse rate are being problematic, I tend to keep more data. Some of my doctors say not to do that, and are quite adamant about it. But a couple of my doctors think like I do -- that not knowing is more stressful for me, than knowing. Buddhism is a little bit like that. The path for each person to reduce suffering in their lives is not the same for everyone.
Second, the idea that you appear to have is that Buddhists are supposed to be passive. I saw it written once that, "Buddhism isn't about being passive, it's about not being driven to activity by automatic impulses based on our conditioning". Think about that.
Third, you need to differentiate between this forum and 'real life'. It is extremely rare for me in 'real life' to be at all confrontational about religion. Of course, if a stranger knocks on my door (ignoring the "no soliciting" sign and trespassing) or walks up to me on the street and begins preaching at me, they may get a few choice words if they ignore my common response ("I'm not interested. Go away"). But aside from those incidents, the last time I had a tense conversation about religion -- in 'real life' -- was probably about 10 years ago. However, when you come to a PUBLIC forum, if you don't expect some frank exchange about religion, then you're in the wrong place. This is not a praise forum.
Within the last 24 hours on this forum, some other poster mentioned to YOU that you don't seem to realize that quite a few of your own posts -- particularly toward atheists -- are expressions of -- as you state above -- disdain and disapproval.
Anyone, who is looking for "hard facts" in fine matters of faith and enlightenment, is wasting his of her time on pseudo spiritual talks and distracting others on their paths. Turn your attention to the walks of the science, plenty to cement your mind with there.
All I am asking about is that in Buddhism there are all types of claims just like we find them, let's say, in Mormonism, about other worlds, gods, universes, buddhas (not in Mormonism obviously), etc. etc. BUT it all sounds totally mythological because nothing has been proven to exist. All the discussion of enlightenment based on the alleged teachings of Gautama Siddharta, if he existed, are both directed towards the ascetic life (at least as much as is known about in the wider public) and talking about enlightenment, following a master, etc. without any demonstrable proof of what they are talking about. And that covers all forms of Buddhism. First we understand that Sakyamuni Gautama Siddharta was key, then we hear about other people, especially Maitreya and of course Amitabha Buddha. But there is no information OUTSIDE OF BUDDHIST SOURCES about the existence of any of this......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
