Are Buddhists Religious And/Or Scientific?

[christiaan]

George Devereux ,Ethnopsychoanalysis Researcher, said about problems with ethnology research. When you stay with aborigines and you understand them, you never will

have the idea to describe it scientifically, when you describe them scientifically you stop to understand them.

Another example from him > The research of what is an orgasme (Masterson etc) describes some symptoms, but not what is an orgasm.

People who had an orgasm never will describe it, people who describe never had.

Awakening.................................................................................................................................?

Wasn't the only way George Devereux could come to (t)his specific conclusions - right or wrong - .......... by questioning ?!

[christiaan]

The job of science is poisoned-arrow analysis. The job of Buddhism is poisoned-arrow removal.

In Theravada Buddhism paramattha dhamma are the only realities. All else is concept.

Although science appears to have a broader scope, in the end, confirmation of scientific knowledge is never 100 percent as there is no unified epistemology even among scientists.

We know which questions the Buddha himself allegedly felt were irrelevant. They are the ones answered with "This question tends not to edification."

http://www.as.miami....a/questions.htm

Oh yes, The Buddha gives the best answer by his own words. ------ and we struggle to explain.........

Christiaan, before you post more of your questions about Buddhism you have a link to study.

When your honest study is successfull, you are welcome back in the TV forum.

http://www.buddhanet...cmdsg/index.htm

Thanks for the advise, I however would not be surprised I by now know more about Buddhism as most of the people who in one or another way call themself 'Buddhists' .

[Brucenkhamen]

Thanks for the advise, I however would not be surprised I by now know more about Buddhism as most of the people who in one or another way call themself 'Buddhists' .

Having read more than a few of your posts I'd beg to differ, or rather it may be true you know a bit "about" Buddhism but you clearly don't "understand" Buddhism.

[AYJAYDEE]

it i have heard that buddha once said "knowledge is the corruption of insight".

Thanks for the advise, I however would not be surprised I by now know more about Buddhism as most of the people who in one or another way call themself 'Buddhists' .

Having read more than a few of your posts I'd beg to differ, or rather it may be true you know a bit "about" Buddhism but you clearly don't "understand" Buddhism.

[AYJAYDEE]

buddha did not suggest we ask questions to accomplish this. he suggested that we practice mindfulness and present awareness and in this way come to enlightment ourselves. he instructed us not to take the word of another, even his. he has been quoted as saying "knowledge is the corruption of insight"

AYJAYDEE:

if other beings live life without the ability to ask questions, why is it necessary for humans to do so in order to live life

Christiaan:

As far as I understand by the life of Buddha: to end suffering and enter a state of enlightenment ?????

[AYJAYDEE]

[why do you feel all buddhists shud be religious and/or scientific? some are one some are the other, some are both. as in any grouping of people

[Brucenkhamen]

buddha did not suggest we ask questions to accomplish this. he suggested that we practice mindfulness and present awareness and in this way come to enlightment ourselves. he instructed us not to take the word of another, even his. he has been quoted as saying "knowledge is the corruption of insight"

I couldn't find that quote, maybe you are thinking of psychic knowledge which is one of the 10 corruptions of insight. From http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#v

vipassanupakkilesa [vipassanuupakkilesa]:

Corruption of insight; intense experiences that can happen in the course of meditation and can lead one to believe that one has completed the path. The standard list includes ten: light, psychic knowledge, rapture, serenity, pleasure, extreme conviction, excessive effort, obsession, indifference, and contentment.

[camerata]

As the sample might be correct, I however am not hit by a poisoned arrow.

As Ajahn Chah said, "If you think you don't suffer, try sitting still for 10 minutes."

The Boddhisatva, being Siddharta Gautama, became enlightened out of living with his questions.

By observing and questioning human life as it was at that time in history , Buddha came to discover the way, the method, also called the Buddhist system, that made enlightenment for him a fact.

So I wonder:

Are you all aware this system, this method, was not discovered by enlightenment, but before enlightenment???

This is not correct. The Buddha attained enlightenment by observing how his mind worked and no doubt a good deal of trial and error. We don't know the details of the process that he himself went through (except it involved a lot of meditation), but after enlightenment he then spent years formulating the most efficient way for others to use to achieve the same result. In other words, he told us the best way to get to Budapest. As Buddhists, if we want to experience Budapest, the most efficient way is to follow his route map. But you seem to think the right way is to "re-invent the wheel" and figure out your own route to Budapest. So you sit around asking questions about it instead of getting on the road.

If I was going to build an atom bomb, I'd get hold of Einstein's equations and the instructions from someone who has already built one. I wouldn't start from scratch and make it an intellectual exercise.

[camerata]

I think the main reason the Buddhism is scientific line comes about is because compared with most other religions one of the things that attracts people to Buddhism is that it has relatively less reason to clash with science.

[christiaan]

it i have heard that buddha once said "knowledge is the corruption of insight".

Thanks for the advise, I however would not be surprised I by now know more about Buddhism as most of the people who in one or another way call themself 'Buddhists' .

Having read more than a few of your posts I'd beg to differ, or rather it may be true you know a bit "about" Buddhism but you clearly don't "understand" Buddhism.

Knowledge might be or might not be, but one thing is sure without knowledge there is no -road to - insight and Buddha even could not have said this.

Only because Buddha know, had knowledge, it could be possible he would have said this but I very much doubt he did since its not in line with his life.

[christiaan]

As Ajahn Chah said, "If you think you don't suffer, try sitting still for 10 minutes."

Christiaan: I do and I am not suffering .

The Boddhisatva, being Siddharta Gautama, became enlightened out of living with his questions.

By observing and questioning human life as it was at that time in history , Buddha came to discover the way, the method, also called the Buddhist system, that made enlightenment for him a fact.

So I wonder:

Are you all aware this system, this method, was not discovered by enlightenment, but before enlightenment???

This is not correct. The Buddha attained enlightenment by observing how his mind worked and no doubt a good deal of trial and error. We don't know the details of the process that he himself went through (except it involved a lot of meditation), but after enlightenment he then spent years formulating the most efficient way for others to use to achieve the same result. In other words, he told us the best way to get to Budapest. As Buddhists, if we want to experience Budapest, the most efficient way is to follow his route map. But you seem to think the right way is to "re-invent the wheel" and figure out your own route to Budapest. So you sit around asking questions about it instead of getting on the road.

Christiaan: as I wrote questioning.

Out of Wikipedia : At the age of 29, the popular biography continues, Siddhartha left his palace to meet his subjects. Despite his father's efforts to hide from him the sick, aged and suffering, Siddhartha was said to have seen an old man. When his charioteer Channa explained to him (christiaan: as we know, to answer Siddharta's questions) that all people grew old, the prince went on further trips beyond the palace. On these he encountered a diseased man, a decaying corpse, and an ascetic. These depressed him, and he initially strove to overcome ageing, sickness, and death by living the life of an ascetic.

Out of Buddhism.about.com:

One day, overcome with curiosity, Prince Siddhartha asked a charioteer to take him on a series of rides through the countryside. On these journeys he was shocked by the sight of an aged man, then a sick man, and then a corpse. The stark realities of old age, disease, and death seized and sickened the Prince.Finally, he saw a wandering ascetic. The charioteer explained that the ascetic was one who had renounced the world and sought release from fear of death and suffering.

The road is knowledge aquired by observing, questioning and also this is practice.

If I was going to build an atom bomb, I'd get hold of Einstein's equations and the instructions from someone who has already built one. I wouldn't start from scratch and make it an intellectual exercise.

If you were going to build an atom bomb, wich we agree you only could do out of some subjective reason you have to ask questions to become familiar with a way to build an atom bomb, for how would you get and understand the Einsteins equations????? This science just doesnot drop on you like 'something' out of the sky.

I hope you are not trying to tell me your example is suitable to explain about Buddhism, wich would then sound like this:

If I was going to become a Buddhist (as 'something' falling out of the sky upon me) there is no reason to re-invent , think myself , about Buddhism, but I have just simply follow the manual.

Just imagine we still would deal with car building in this way, after FORD built his first car.

As I wrote before, fortunately science is developing out of a scientific attitude.

[camerata]

These depressed him, and he initially strove to overcome ageing, sickness, and death by living the life of an ascetic.

Come on Christiaan, this is just what got the Buddha interested in overcoming suffering in the first place. It is not how he became enlightened. To continue with our metaphor, it's how he found out that Budapest might exist. Of course, no one is saying the Buddha never asked any questions.

If you want to believe that the road to nibbana consists of intellectual speculation, be my guest, but it ain't the way the Buddha taught and therefore there is no known result.

If I was going to become a Buddhist (as 'something' falling out of the sky upon me) there is no reason to re-invent , think myself , about Buddhism, but I have just simply follow the manual.

Who said anything about "becoming a Buddhist?" The goal is nibbana. You have to experience what's in the manual and test it, not just speculate about whether it'll work or not. If you want to build a Ford, why struggle to find a different way to build it? If you want to build some other kind of car, it's a different matter entirely. Apparently, that's what you want to do.

[sabaijai]

The job of science is poisoned-arrow analysis. The job of Buddhism is poisoned-arrow removal.

In Theravada Buddhism paramattha dhamma are the only realities. All else is concept.

Although science appears to have a broader scope, in the end, confirmation of scientific knowledge is never 100 percent as there is no unified epistemology even among scientists.

We know which questions the Buddha himself allegedly felt were irrelevant. They are the ones answered with "This question tends not to edification."

http://www.as.miami....a/questions.htm

Oh yes, The Buddha gives the best answer by his own words. ------ and we struggle to explain.........

As the sample might be correct, I however am not hit by a poisoned arrow.

Going back to the poisoned arrow , it seems they - Buddhist - most of the time do not analyse but look for a treatment, a treatment that doesnot cure them, at least not in the actual moment.

So you have not been struck by the poisoned arrow - a metaphor for dukkha?

In that case you ought to have millions of followers around you, as you would probably be the only person on earth in this era not affected.

You should teach us how it was that you escaped. All the analysis of the arrow in the world won't 'cure' anything.

Nibbana 'removes' the poisoned arrow.

[Brucenkhamen]

Knowledge might be or might not be, but one thing is sure without knowledge there is no -road to - insight and Buddha even could not have said this.

Only because Buddha know, had knowledge, it could be possible he would have said this but I very much doubt he did since its not in line with his life.

Knowledge without a practical application is a waste of brain cells, a waste of bandwidth, a waste of disk space. Life is not a game of trivial pursuit.

[Brucenkhamen]

As Ajahn Chah said, "If you think you don't suffer, try sitting still for 10 minutes."

Christiaan: I do and I am not suffering .

Then you have not yet begun to wake up.

[christiaan]

As Ajahn Chah said, "If you think you don't suffer, try sitting still for 10 minutes."

Christiaan: I do and I am not suffering .

Then you have not yet begun to wake up.

Speak for and about your self.

No comments on personal level.

As I understood the moderator closed another topic since there the same thing happened.

I am not subordinated to some selfapointed authority.

When you have questions about my person I see if I can answer, but I will not go into such personal remarks!

[christiaan]

So you have not been struck by the poisoned arrow - a metaphor for dukkha?

In that case you ought to have millions of followers around you, as you would probably be the only person on earth in this era not affected.

You should teach us how it was that you escaped. All the analysis of the arrow in the world won't 'cure' anything.

Nibbana 'removes' the poisoned arrow.

As I explained, a poisoned arrow in my option is not the same as being sick in a long term disease, so I wonder if the poison arrow is The Dhukka.

We all know poisoned arrows make you die quite fast.

We do not die fast we die in long term, over and over again.

When we are talking about suffering in general, I see I did suffer sometimes in life but his suffering made me learn, understand.

It is the suffering that teached me, why trying to escape from my teacher?

I am very gratefull for the suffering I had becos the suffering directed me to those specific points in my specific life, my Karma, where I had to pay attention too and take action.

How would I know and how could I have been safed by a poisoned arrow that hit me if I would not have felt the pain, the suffering?

It is this suffering that told me to act and do something about it.

But it is not just the suffering that helped me to become whole (healthy), it is also the analyisis of the happening, the knowledge how to act, and the acting itself.

To deal with possible suffering I study, complentate, meditate, do a lot of practice.

We all have to be our own teacher, our own student and follow our own intuition and our own insights inspired by the great teachers in this world like Budda,

I would say Khaowong1 gave a nice sample of great wisdom about this in another topic.

I hope there was not any denigrating remark towards Buddha, - one of the few greatest persons at his time on earth -, in this contribution, if so, I deeply excuse for it since it could not have been my intention.

I am here to learn no mre no less.

[Brucenkhamen]

Speak for and about your self.

No comments on personal level.

As I understood the moderator closed another topic since there the same thing happened.

I am not subordinated to some selfapointed authority.

When you have questions about my person I see if I can answer, but I will not go into such personal remarks!

Taking it personally is your choice.

You began discussing your person when you said "I do and I am not suffering", if your person is so precious don't bring it into the discussion.

Any person who after sitting still for 10 minutes has no incling of the nature of unsatisfactoriness (aka suffering) has not yet begun to wake up, this is one of the points of the Ajahn Chah quote above.

[christiaan]

These depressed him, and he initially strove to overcome ageing, sickness, and death by living the life of an ascetic.

Come on Christiaan, this is just what got the Buddha interested in overcoming suffering in the first place. It is not how he became enlightened. To continue with our metaphor, it's how he found out that Budapest might exist. Of course, no one is saying the Buddha never asked any questions.

If you want to believe that the road to nibbana consists of intellectual speculation, be my guest, but it ain't the way the Buddha taught and therefore there is no known result.

If I was going to become a Buddhist (as 'something' falling out of the sky upon me) there is no reason to re-invent , think myself , about Buddhism, but I have just simply follow the manual.

Who said anything about "becoming a Buddhist?" The goal is nibbana. You have to experience what's in the manual and test it, not just speculate about whether it'll work or not. If you want to build a Ford, why struggle to find a different way to build it? If you want to build some other kind of car, it's a different matter entirely. Apparently, that's what you want to do.

It would not be too difficult to point at different events in the Life of Buddha where he in fact was questioning, it speaks out of different events in his life.

I do not think he found out this way 'Budapest' might exist, since there was not any information available there was something like a 'Budapest'.

By his pure intuition he just knew what he met and what he questioned and so found out that was not the answer to his fundamental questions and so had to go and continued to experince , obserbvwe and question.

I will not go into this more since I rely on the fact most people all this will know themself.

I do not think I did tell anywhwere I do believe or have the opinion that the road to enlightenment is based on intellectual speculation.

If you reread my question and remarks you cannot find this anywhere.

To think or just suggest I am advocating intellectual speculation is not my concept but it might be a concept in the mind of the beholder.

I hope I did not make any denigrating remark about Buddha, - since he was one of the few great teachers at his time, I respect deeply - , if so I excuse myself for this since it was not and could not have been my intention.

I am here to learn , no more, no less.

[christiaan]

Who said anything about "becoming a Buddhist?" The goal is nibbana. You have to experience what's in the manual and test it, not just speculate about whether it'll work or not. If you want to build a Ford, why struggle to find a different way to build it? If you want to build some other kind of car, it's a different matter entirely. Apparently, that's what you want to do.

When one experiences the car Ford built, the manual was only a confirmation of the experience. Reading and experiencing the manual and testing the manual is not the same as experiencing the car he built. But I assume that is not what you try to tell. When somebody wants to build a Ford, no problem, just build it, but you are not allowed to drive it on the main streets anymore since it is not suitable and save and functional by modern standards.

One did not just build another car being this a different matter entirely.

Looking back to the history of building cars I would say it is quite clear building cars transformed cars from the first car Ford built to the suitable, safe and functional cars (not perfect cars ofcourse) that are build today, and what will the future bring us?

The transformation of the car was no intellectual speculation, at least not just intellectual speculation, it was an idea coming to life in living thinking, developing like 'a caterpillar becoming a butterfly', all spiritual and physical action in and of humanity..

What I am asking is: has there been a transformation like this in a spiritual way, of Buddhism over the past 2500 years?

I hope I did not make any denigrating remark about Buddha in this contribution, since Buddha was one of the greatest person at his time in human history, and I respect him deeply. If I did, I excuse myself since it was not or could not have been my intention.

I am here to learn, no more, no less.

[AYJAYDEE]

it was a quote from a book written by a sri lankan monk. he said buddha said it, i merely said i HEARD he said it. it fits with the idea tht thinking and questioning does not produce insight. present awareness and observation does. knowledge doesnt enter into it.

it i have heard that buddha once said "knowledge is the corruption of insight".

Thanks for the advise, I however would not be surprised I by now know more about Buddhism as most of the people who in one or another way call themself 'Buddhists' .

Having read more than a few of your posts I'd beg to differ, or rather it may be true you know a bit "about" Buddhism but you clearly don't "understand" Buddhism.

Knowledge might be or might not be, but one thing is sure without knowledge there is no -road to - insight and Buddha even could not have said this.

Only because Buddha know, had knowledge, it could be possible he would have said this but I very much doubt he did since its not in line with his life.

[AYJAYDEE]

it was a quote in a book by a sri lankan monk. he was discussing how knowledge is merely opinions and speculation and only present time awareness and watchfulness will lead to insight. i was referring to the fact that some here seems to have a wealth of knowledge (read opinions) but not as much understanding, as you pointed out.

buddha did not suggest we ask questions to accomplish this. he suggested that we practice mindfulness and present awareness and in this way come to enlightment ourselves. he instructed us not to take the word of another, even his. he has been quoted as saying "knowledge is the corruption of insight"

I couldn't find that quote, maybe you are thinking of psychic knowledge which is one of the 10 corruptions of insight. From http://www.accesstoi...glossary.html#v

vipassanupakkilesa [vipassanuupakkilesa]:

Corruption of insight; intense experiences that can happen in the course of meditation and can lead one to believe that one has completed the path. The standard list includes ten: light, psychic knowledge, rapture, serenity, pleasure, extreme conviction, excessive effort, obsession, indifference, and contentment.

[camerata]

I do not think he found out this way 'Budapest' might exist, since there was not any information available there was something like a 'Budapest'.

Of course there was no hard information available on enlightenment, but in fact many people at the time (eg. Mahavira) felt that it was attainable without knowing exactly what it was. See Karen Armstrong's book, Buddha, portraying the Buddha as a man of his time.

[camerata]

What I am asking is: has there been a transformation like this in a spiritual way, of Buddhism over the past 2500 years?

Well, the answer would be "yes" according to Mahayanists. The Mahayana proposition is that different people require different paths to liberation, so different sects arose and the goal was altered from the nibbana of the Pali Canon to "enlightenment" or to "buddhahood," and the bodhisattva path was devised.

In modern times we have so-called "Western Buddhism" which combines the core teachings with modern psychology and psychotherapy.

My personal feeling about Mahayana is that while alternative methods might have been needed for Indian or Chinese peasants 2,000 years ago, any educated person these days has the ability to grasp the original teachings. I don't need a whole lot of ritual (Tibetan), to throw away the suttas (Zen), pseudo-Theism (Pure Land) or communal chanting (Nichiren), but I guess it's a matter of individual choice. I quite like Western Buddhism now, with its emphasis on mental cultivation through meditation.

[lungmi]

To all my friends in the forum.

Tomorrow I have a hard work, I will go with my copper sticks in the rice fields of my friend, because there is not enough water with his pump system.

The copper sticks tell me where there is water. I don.t know why, the last times it works. No explanations, science cannot give me an answer.

Christiaan, ask my copper sticks, I'm sure they will answer you.

[healthcaretaker]

Once again, I find this OP asking a question with a message that do not make sense.

christiaans,

You have shown yourself to be someone who simply don't agree with what others try to explain to your about Buddhism(as shown from your messages all over recently) although you have mentioned you are trying to "learn or find out" numerous times. Everytime you tried to disagree without any good reasons but yet you have the persistence to stay and carry on. I don't know what's your real intentions but whatever your reasons are not important. What is important is you need help, as judged from your messages and you have very poor knowledge of Bhuddism, religions as well as most importantly, LIFE.

Here's my answer to your OP:

1) If you take Buddhism as a religion, then of course Buddhists are religious, otherwise you will not call them as "buddhists"

2) If you don't take Buddhism as a religion, then Buddhists may or may not be religious, depending how you define "relgious" then.

3) On the scientific part of your question, the best answer for you is:

a) Buddhism is NOT scientific seen 2500 years ago when it started, there is NO science. Although Buddhism knowledge and teachings are all or mostly coherent to scientific discoveries(much later) one need not consider Buddhism as scientific although BOTH are seeking for the TRUTH.

4) If you compared Buddhism to other religions, then Buddhism can be considered as more scientific than all the others

I hope the above answers satisfy you.

Actually, a better way for you to ask should be "Are Scientists religious and/or Buddhistic ?"(Since Buddhism covered a bigger area and science is newer than Buddhism)

May the Lord enlighten you sooner.

Edited February 13, 2011 by camerata
Irrelevant and trollish remark about Christianity deleted.

[christiaan]

Once again, I find this OP asking a question with a message that do not make sense.

christiaans,

You have shown yourself to be someone who simply don't agree with what others try to explain to your about Buddhism(as shown from your messages all over recently) although you have mentioned you are trying to "learn or find out" numerous times. Everytime you tried to disagree without any good reasons but yet you have the persistence to stay and carry on. I don't know what's your real intentions but whatever your reasons are not important. What is important is you need help, as judged from your messages and you have very poor knowledge of Bhuddism, religions as well as most importantly, LIFE.

Here's my answer to your OP:

1) If you take Buddhism as a religion, then of course Buddhists are religious, otherwise you will not call them as "buddhists"

2) If you don't take Buddhism as a religion, then Buddhists may or may not be religious, depending how you define "relgious" then.

3) On the scientific part of your question, the best answer for you is:

a) Buddhism is NOT scientific seen 2500 years ago when it started, there is NO science. Although Buddhism knowledge and teachings are all or mostly coherent to scientific discoveries(much later) one need not consider Buddhism as scientific although BOTH are seeking for the TRUTH.

4) If you compared Buddhism to other religions, then Buddhism can be considered as more scientific than all the others

I hope the above answers satisfy you.

Actually, a better way for you to ask should be "Are Scientists religious and/or Buddhistic ?"(Since Buddhism covered a bigger area and science is newer than Buddhism)

May the Lord enlighten you sooner.

Since my OP was a question, and no absolute statement, any answer satisfies me.

All answers mainly tell me about the way contributors think, and by this give me insight in some of their knowledge.

I noticed some contributors are quite objecticve an healthy thinking in what they write and how they write, some others are not.

I would not ask a question if scientists are religious, that question would be completely irrelevant since there is not such a thing as 'scientist' (an abstract generalazation) , scientists are humans, and humans can be scientists and religious people and human can be scientists and not religious at all.

The question however more could be is science religion and vice versa.

[healthcaretaker]

Once again, I find this OP asking a question with a message that do not make sense.

christiaans,

You have shown yourself to be someone who simply don't agree with what others try to explain to your about Buddhism(as shown from your messages all over recently) although you have mentioned you are trying to "learn or find out" numerous times. Everytime you tried to disagree without any good reasons but yet you have the persistence to stay and carry on. I don't know what's your real intentions but whatever your reasons are not important. What is important is you need help, as judged from your messages and you have very poor knowledge of Bhuddism, religions as well as most importantly, LIFE.

Here's my answer to your OP:

1) If you take Buddhism as a religion, then of course Buddhists are religious, otherwise you will not call them as "buddhists"

2) If you don't take Buddhism as a religion, then Buddhists may or may not be religious, depending how you define "relgious" then.

3) On the scientific part of your question, the best answer for you is:

a) Buddhism is NOT scientific seen 2500 years ago when it started, there is NO science. Although Buddhism knowledge and teachings are all or mostly coherent to scientific discoveries(much later) one need not consider Buddhism as scientific although BOTH are seeking for the TRUTH.

4) If you compared Buddhism to other religions, then Buddhism can be considered as more scientific than all the others

I hope the above answers satisfy you.

Actually, a better way for you to ask should be "Are Scientists religious and/or Buddhistic ?"(Since Buddhism covered a bigger area and science is newer than Buddhism)

May the Lord enlighten you sooner.

Since my OP was a question, and no absolute statement, any answer satisfies me.

All answers mainly tell me about the way contributors think, and by this give me insight in some of their knowledge.

I noticed some contributors are quite objecticve an healthy thinking in what they write and how they write, some others are not.

I would not ask a question if scientists are religious, that question would be completely irrelevant since there is not such a thing as 'scientist' (an abstract generalazation) , scientists are humans, and humans can be scientists and religious people and human can be scientists and not religious at all.

The question however more could be is science religion and vice versa.

So what's your point ? Are you here to observe how others write or contribute or actually trying to find answers related to Buddhism ?

Based on your opinion or knowledge, you should not even ask your question in the OP or might as well write:

There is not such a thing as 'buddhist'(an abstract generalazation), buddhists are humans, and humans can be buddhists and scientific people and humans can be buddhists and and not scientific at all.

Do you get it now ? No matter how or whatever ways you put it in any equations, scientist, buddhists and human can be the same BUT not some or most of other religions people, you know WHICH.

This again proved science and buddhism are coherent, hope you find your answers to your OP soon but I know you will never admit it. The more you wrote, the more it showed you are not genuinely here to seek for ANY truth.

Edited February 15, 2011 by healthcaretaker

[sabaijai]

We all know poisoned arrows make you die quite fast.

We do not die fast we die in long term, over and over again.

When we are talking about suffering in general, I see I did suffer sometimes in life but his suffering made me learn, understand.

It is the suffering that teached me, why trying to escape from my teacher?

I am very gratefull for the suffering I had becos the suffering directed me to those specific points in my specific life, my Karma, where I had to pay attention too and take action.

How would I know and how could I have been safed by a poisoned arrow that hit me if I would not have felt the pain, the suffering?

It is this suffering that told me to act and do something about it.

But it is not just the suffering that helped me to become whole (healthy), it is also the analyisis of the happening, the knowledge how to act, and the acting itself.

To deal with possible suffering I study, complentate, meditate, do a lot of practice.

We all have to be our own teacher, our own student and follow our own intuition and our own insights inspired by the great teachers in this world like Budda,

I would say Khaowong1 gave a nice sample of great wisdom about this in another topic.

I hope there was not any denigrating remark towards Buddha, - one of the few greatest persons at his time on earth -, in this contribution, if so, I deeply excuse for it since it could not have been my intention.

I am here to learn no mre no less.

If this is true, you have no need for Buddhism.

[lungmi]

When a baby is born the baby is scientist.

Where is the milk of my mother?

Later the baby checks out:

What is what? The baby discovers the word.

Discover what is what, in Pali Thatata.

Edited February 15, 2011 by lungmi