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.
What they do have in common is what I propose as the definition of religion: "The belief in a non -human entity that can affect human life and can be propitiated." This also covers Buddhism (Karma) and Scientology (Thetans).
Keep in mind that the concept of Karma is one of the most debated topics in Buddhism.
Keep in mind that the concept of Karma is one of the most debated topics in Buddhism.
As is the validity of the Bible and the "Real" Jesus in the Christian milieu. As with karma, I don't think many have thought it through. You have probably seen my arguments on this - The Gospels were written by Pauline Christians. The Real Jesus (if not actually totally made up) is a Christian repainting of a failed Jewish messiah.
And Karma must have a discriminatory level of intelligence as an extant entity or the sorting into good and bad deeds is conditioned by whether we believe them to be good or bad. Karma has to be a god in any sense that i think of the term. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Talk of 'cause and effect' is merely human -ethics reciprocity (which seems to be as far as the 'New -age idea goes) but doesn't go nearly far enough to make the Buddhist Dogma of Karma work. Talk of 'what goes around comes around' is just a glib saying that explains nothing. I haven't seen anyone think it through.
Those that might think of it might say that it feels Good to believe it, or Buddhist apologists might say 'It was revealed to Buddha, so how it works is irrelevant'. Both are merely the good old religious faith - claims. I like Buddhism. I get something from mindfullness and meditation. But the dogmas just don't stack up for me.
And a 'quasi' god and faith -claims about it make it a religion, even without the temples, collecting tins, preachers, propaganda and the other claptrappings that go with religion.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-22-2019 at 05:32 AM..
As is the validity of the Bible and the "Real" Jesus in the Christian milieu. As with karma, I don't think many have thought it through. You have probably seen my arguments on this - The Gospels were written by Pauline Christians. The Real Jesus (if not actually totally made up) is a Christian repainting of a failed Jewish messiah.
And Karma must have a discriminatory level of intelligence as an extant entity or the sorting into good and bad deeds is conditioned by whether we believe them to be good or bad. Karma has to be a god in any sense that i think of the term. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Talk of 'cause and effect' is merely human -ethics reciprocity (which seems to be as far as the 'New -age idea goes) but doesn't go nearly far enough to make the Buddhist Dogma of Karma work. Talk of 'what goes around comes around' is just a glib saying that explains nothing. I haven't seen anyone think it through.
Those that might think of it might say that it feels Good to believe it, or Buddhist apologists might say 'It was revealed to Buddha, so how it works is irrelevant'. Both are merely the good old religious faith - claims. I like Buddhism. I get something from mindfullness and meditation. But the dogmas just don't stack up for me.
And a 'quasi' god and faith -claims about it make it a religion, even without the temples, collecting tins, preachers, propaganda and the other claptrappings that go with religion.
Okay, but I don't agree.
A leading view of Karma in Buddhism is that it is simply cause and effect. If you do good, it is more likely that good will come to you. If you do bad, it is more likely that bad will come to you. And, that view explains why good people can have bad things happen to them, while bad people can have good things happen to them...it's the "more likely" thing that saves the concept.
Of course, there are others who see it more as some sort of cosmic judge sentencing people to rewards or punishments (which I was glad to see the speaker in my class rejected from the outset).
What's wrong with "human-ethics reciprocity"? Your disagreement with that concept makes it sound as if you think Buddhism has to be somehow mystical.
Ah, one of the things that I like about what I consider to be "real Buddhism" is that it requires no dogma. But I see Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion. But remember, in Buddhism (at least the Theravada brand I'm used to) you're not required to believe anything.
I often think of the monk in Bangkok that I was talking to, lamenting the difficultly in finding a Buddhist temple in the States. And he responded by pointing out that everything I see "here" (at the temple) -- the buildings and even the Buddha statues -- have nothing to do with real Buddhism. That everything I needed to be a Buddhist was "right here" (and he put his hand on the top of my head).
What they do have in common is what I propose as the definition of religion: "The belief in a non -human entity that can affect human life and can be propitiated." This also covers Buddhism (Karma) and Scientology (Thetans).
Reads like a pretty accurate definition to me...
Not sure "non-human entity" is quite perfect, however, since even an atheist like me believes there are non-human entities that affect human life, but then when you add "and can be propitiated" which does tend to further define what religions include that atheists struggle mightily to accept as true.
That was certainly what i found when i first logged on, and I'm always learning new stuff, too. It's just that after a while If you stay on and If you consider your atheism (since you used the term- I wouldn't presume to tell you rather than you tell me) in a wider role than just personal, you may (like me) wonder whether anything is being accomplished by posting here.
A leading view of Karma in Buddhism is that it is simply cause and effect. If you do good, it is more likely that good will come to you. If you do bad, it is more likely that bad will come to you. And, that view explains why good people can have bad things happen to them, while bad people can have good things happen to them...it's the "more likely" thing that saves the concept.
Of course, there are others who see it more as some sort of cosmic judge sentencing people to rewards or punishments (which I was glad to see the speaker in my class rejected from the outset).
What's wrong with "human-ethics reciprocity"? Your disagreement with that concept makes it sound as if you think Buddhism has to be somehow mystical.
Ah, one of the things that I like about what I consider to be "real Buddhism" is that it requires no dogma. But I see Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion. But remember, in Buddhism (at least the Theravada brand I'm used to) you're not required to believe anything.
I often think of the monk in Bangkok that I was talking to, lamenting the difficultly in finding a Buddhist temple in the States. And he responded by pointing out that everything I see "here" (at the temple) -- the buildings and even the Buddha statues -- have nothing to do with real Buddhism. That everything I needed to be a Buddhist was "right here" (and he put his hand on the top of my head).
The Fo Guang Shan Hsi Lai Temple is very close to where I grew up, in Southern California. I've been there many times...
Sounds like what a monk in Bangkok might say (or any monk for that matter). I've enjoyed visiting many of the Wats in Thailand too. Beautiful, serene and sometimes lavish like the Wat Phra Si Rattana Satsadaram. We were there while the people in Thailand were still in mourning (and all in black) right after the passing of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (who reigned for 68 years). Interesting book I read about him at the time too, "The King Never Smiles," by Paul M. Handley.
The Fo Guang Shan Hsi Lai Temple is very close to where I grew up, in Southern California. I've been there many times...
Sounds like what a monk in Bangkok might say (or any monk for that matter). I've enjoyed visiting many of the Wats in Thailand too. Beautiful, serene and sometimes lavish like the Wat Phra Si Rattana Satsadaram. We were there while the people in Thailand were still in mourning (and all in black) right after the passing of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (who reigned for 68 years). Interesting book I read about him at the time too, "The King Never Smiles," by Paul M. Handley.
Ah yes -- the "King Never Smiles". And now look what they have as king. Ugh!
I often thought of Wat Phra Keow as a spiritual Disneyland. Although I visited many times, to be honest I preferred the more normal temples.
A leading view of Karma in Buddhism is that it is simply cause and effect. If you do good, it is more likely that good will come to you. If you do bad, it is more likely that bad will come to you. And, that view explains why good people can have bad things happen to them, while bad people can have good things happen to them...it's the "more likely" thing that saves the concept.
Of course, there are others who see it more as some sort of cosmic judge sentencing people to rewards or punishments (which I was glad to see the speaker in my class rejected from the outset).
What's wrong with "human-ethics reciprocity"? Your disagreement with that concept makes it sound as if you think Buddhism has to be somehow mystical.
Ah, one of the things that I like about what I consider to be "real Buddhism" is that it requires no dogma. But I see Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion. But remember, in Buddhism (at least the Theravada brand I'm used to) you're not required to believe anything.
I often think of the monk in Bangkok that I was talking to, lamenting the difficultly in finding a Buddhist temple in the States. And he responded by pointing out that everything I see "here" (at the temple) -- the buildings and even the Buddha statues -- have nothing to do with real Buddhism. That everything I needed to be a Buddhist was "right here" (and he put his hand on the top of my head).
I'm not claiming to be an expert of Buddhism but I am sure that reincarnation (or rebirth, as some prefer to call it) is more than just human-ethics reciprocity. It is about good and bad deeds done during your life affecting what one is reborn as in the next. If you do bad deeds you get reborn in a form that will have to do more work to get back to where you were. If you are a woman the hope is to be reborn a man. If you are a man, you have that chance to get off the wheel of rebirth. If you only do enough good deeds to be reborn as a god, you have wasted that chance.
This (if I have it right) means that the heap of merit (or demerit) that determines the state, nature of quality of your next form will depend on your deeds being good or bad. Who decides? Karma must have the ability to decide or it's just down to what is a good or bad deed to Us, or rather to the person doing the deed.
This is of course not considering my other question - just what is 'reborn' apart from your good or bad deeds? Buddhism has no soul, though some cite memories of a former life (indeed this is a quality of a Buddha - you recall your previous lives). But what is 'You?' There is no soul, no self, no "Id". So what is the 'you' that is reborn? Somebody mentioned "Essence" but of course when i asked what that was if there is no Self or soul in Buddhism, nothing.
These are the two main reasons that, despite liking and valuing Buddhism, for me, Dogmatically, it fails.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-23-2019 at 05:37 AM..
I'm not claiming to be an expert of Buddhism but I am sure that reincarnation (or rebirth, as some prefer to call it) is more than just human-ethics reciprocity. It is about good and bad deeds done during your life affecting what one is reborn as in the next. If you do bad deeds you get reborn in a form that will have to do more work to get back to where you were. If you are a woman the hope is to be reborn a man. If you are a man, you have that chance to get off the wheel of rebirth. If you only do enough good deeds to be reborn as a god, you have wasted that chance.
This (if I have it right) means that the heap of merit (or demerit) that determines the state, nature of quality of your next form will depend on your deeds being good or bad. Who decides? Karma must have the ability to decide or it's just down to what is a good or bad deed to Us, or rather to the person doing the deed.
This is of course not considering my other question - just what is 'reborn' apart from your good or bad deeds? Buddhism has no soul, though some cite memories of a former life (indeed this is a quality of a Buddha - you recall your previous lives). But what is 'You?' There is no soul, no self, no "Id". So what is the 'you' that is reborn? Somebody mentioned "Essence" but of course when i asked what that was if there is no Self or soul in Buddhism, nothing.
These are the two main reasons that, despite liking and valuing Buddhism, for me, Dogmatically, it fails.
First, in my post, I only talked about karma, not rebirth/reincarnation...and, in other posts I have said that I remain unconvinced about rebirth/reincarnation.
But...that first paragraph...which version of Buddhism did that come from? Certainly nothing I ever learned in Thai-Theravadan Buddhism.
You raise a good question about carrying karma over into the next life. I never believed in that...and not believing something is okay in Buddhism.
One of my thoughts is that reincarnation is something that occurs in this life.
Ah...dogmatically you appear to have forgotten that Buddha said we should test his teachings, and not assume they are all correct just because he said it.
I'm afraid that we may be asked to take the discussion to Buddhism forum. But the doctrine of Karma is integral to the dogma of rebirth. It is the mechanism that determines what kind of rebirth one will get. It was derived from Hinduism and all that Buddhism did was remove the gods from having any input into what a person had to do to influence their own Karma to turn it from a heap of demerit into a heap of merit, with direct influence on what sort of being one was reborn into.
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.
