Are Buddhists Religious And/Or Scientific?

[christiaan]

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.

When a baby is born, a baby is no scientist.

A baby starts to become a 'scientist' at the moment it starts asking.

Asking is related to thinking.

We only can have memories way back to our childhood from the moment we started to think since we only can remember what we can think.

Before we start thinking as a young child, we are still in nibbana.

I never wrote I needed Buddhism, I never wrote I did not need Buddhism, I wrote I wanted to learn about Buddhism ( as it has been in the past and as it is today)

And learning, in my way of thinking, probably is quite different from what some other people overhere define as learning.

Maybe that is becos I am an autonomous thinker.

[healthcaretaker]

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.

When a baby is born, a baby is no scientist.

A baby starts to become a 'scientist' at the moment it starts asking.

Asking is related to thinking.

We only can have memories way back to our childhood from the moment we started to think since we only can remember what we can think.

Before we start thinking as a young child, we are still in nibbana.

I never wrote I needed Buddhism, I never wrote I did not need Buddhism, I wrote I wanted to learn about Buddhism ( as it has been in the past and as it is today)

And learning, in my way of thinking, probably is quite different from what some other people overhere define as learning.

Maybe that is becos I am an autonomous thinker.

I don't think you are sincere. You claimed numerous times you wanted to learn about Buddhism but all your messages showed that you don't agree to Buddhism and when others showed you the anwers you needed, you will twist or turn to other topics.

I told you in another thread I can provide the answers to your question you asked but you must answer my question of whether you are a christian or not, you did not reply and run away from that thread.

[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.

This is not fair to me and my message as there is no reference and record to my original message. I don't think I made any irrelevant ot trollish remarks to christianity. If I am not mistaken, it is in no. 4 that I state that "if compared Buddhism to other religions,(especially christianity whose claims have been proved to be wrong by science) Buddhism can be considered as more scientific. It's a reference made to christianity. With that deleted, my original message appeared incomplete. What if others start to ask on what basis do I claim that Buddhism can be considered as more scientific than all the others ? I will still have to mention that again.

[camerata]

Two posts have been deleted - one because it was nothing but personal remarks, the other because it was about moderation. If anyone has a problem with moderation and needs an explanation, PM the moderator concerned. Public discussion of moderation is against forum rules.

I think we'd all appreciate it if there were less personal remarks about other members and more posts about Buddhism. If other posters say things you don't agree with, criticize their argumentation or just ignore them.

Thanks in advance.

[camerata]

Before we start thinking as a young child, we are still in nibbana.

If you really believe this, give us a scriptural reference to back it up. Otherwise it's christiaanism, not Buddhism.

[christiaan]

Before we start thinking as a young child, we are still in nibbana.

If you really believe this, give us a scriptural reference to back it up. Otherwise it's christiaanism, not Buddhism.

What have I read overhere?

Normal human life is a life where we cannot experience nibbanna as we are hindered to do so by conceptual, associative thinking, and our ego.

Since ...

a child does not think before about 3 years old, therefore has no concepts out of experience, has no ego, has no memories.

Becos we as humans in a normal development have no thinking before the age of about 3 years old we cannot remember anything out of that state of life, since memories are related to thinking. When a person does remember things out of the first period of his life, it tells there was an exceptional early thinking in the first period of life.

We start to remember from the time we start to think, start to have concepts about the world and start to name our self I from about 3 years old or later.

To name our self I is no imitation or conditioning since only a human can call him or herself I.

I tried to 'learn' primary intelligent autistic children to name themself I when referring to themself, but I did not succeed , they kept on talking about themself in the third person.

So, a child has a non-self in those first years of his life.

This non-self is the

[christiaan]

Before we start thinking as a young child, we are still in nibbana.

If you really believe this, give us a scriptural reference to back it up. Otherwise it's christiaanism, not Buddhism.

Christiaan:

What have I read overhere on this forum?

Normal human life is a life where we cannot experience nibbanna as we are hindered to do so by conceptual, associative thinking, and our ego.

Since ...

a child does not think before about 3 years old, therefore has no concepts out of experience, has no ego, has no memories.

Becos we as humans in a normal development have no thinking before the age of about 3 years old we cannot remember anything out of that state of life, since memories are related to thinking. When a person does remember things out of the first period of his life, it tells there was an exceptional early thinking in the first period of life.

We start to remember from the time we start to think, start to have concepts about the world and start to name our self I from about 3 years old or later.

To name our self I is no imitation or conditioning since only a human can call him or herself I.

(I tried to 'learn' primary intelligent autistic children to name themself I when referring to themself, but I did not succeed , they kept on talking about themself in the third person)

So, a child has a non-self in those first years of his life.

This non-self is the condition for enlightment and being present in nibbana.

Buddhist teaching.

I do not need a specific scripture to observe children are still present in nibbana when they are living their first years on earth.

It is just a matter of observing and being aware the concepts of enlightment are effective here.

No need for dogma's.

[camerata]

So, a child has a non-self in those first years of his life.

This non-self is the condition for enlightment and being present in nibbana.

Buddhist teaching.

I do not need a specific scripture to observe children are still present in nibbana when they are living their first years on earth.

It is just a matter of observing and being aware the concepts of enlightment are effective here.

No need for dogma's.

You are misunderstanding nibbana as simply an absence of conceptual thinking and ego. As far as Buddhism is concerned, nibbana is what the Buddha said it was. It literally (from the Pali dictionary) means "ceasing" - "to become extinguished." "The extinction of greed, ceasing of hate, ceasing of confusion. This takes place at the attainment of Arahatship."

You have to have the defilements and overcome them using wisdom to attain nibbana. You put a toy in between two one-year-old kids and they will immediately start grabbing it, fighting and screaming, because they want it for themselves. That isn't nibbana and it isn't the behaviour of arahants. Babies experience suffering - a lot of suffering. Not having a sense of "me and mine" is just one aspect of nibbana, not the whole package. Nibbana has to have been attained via wisdom, and conceptual thinking is possible afterwards. If a baby is "in nibbana," according to your definition, then so is a goldfish.

[lungmi]

Before we start thinking as a young child, we are still in nibbana.

If you really believe this, give us a scriptural reference to back it up. Otherwise it's christiaanism, not Buddhism.

What have I read overhere?

Normal human life is a life where we cannot experience nibbanna as we are hindered to do so by conceptual, associative thinking, and our ego.

Since ...

a child does not think before about 3 years old, therefore has no concepts out of experience, has no ego, has no memories.

Becos we as humans in a normal development have no thinking before the age of about 3 years old we cannot remember anything out of that state of life, since memories are related to thinking. When a person does remember things out of the first period of his life, it tells there was an exceptional early thinking in the first period of life.

We start to remember from the time we start to think, start to have concepts about the world and start to name our self I from about 3 years old or later.

To name our self I is no imitation or conditioning since only a human can call him or herself I.

I tried to 'learn' primary intelligent autistic children to name themself I when referring to themself, but I did not succeed , they kept on talking about themself in the third person.

So, a child has a non-self in those first years of his life.

This non-self is the

Your post lacks science. Your logic lacks logic.

Before I give you a long teaching about Development Psychology (MA Education Psychology, University Freiburg, Germany)

a fact:

A one year old baby in my neighborhood is loved by everyone and he loves everyone, even a Farang. When you take him in your arms and walk around he outstretches his arm and with his index finger points to a dog, to a tree, to a bird.

He wants to know what is what, Thai people answer in Thai, me in English.

One time in my arms he pointed to a big water bottle, I say "water", he answered "naam". The scientific approach to understand the world.

(to point to something is a question)

Edited February 17, 2011 by lungmi

[christiaan]

Before we start thinking as a young child, we are still in nibbana.

If you really believe this, give us a scriptural reference to back it up. Otherwise it's christiaanism, not Buddhism.

What have I read overhere?

Normal human life is a life where we cannot experience nibbanna as we are hindered to do so by conceptual, associative thinking, and our ego.

Since ...

a child does not think before about 3 years old, therefore has no concepts out of experience, has no ego, has no memories.

Becos we as humans in a normal development have no thinking before the age of about 3 years old we cannot remember anything out of that state of life, since memories are related to thinking. When a person does remember things out of the first period of his life, it tells there was an exceptional early thinking in the first period of life.

We start to remember from the time we start to think, start to have concepts about the world and start to name our self I from about 3 years old or later.

To name our self I is no imitation or conditioning since only a human can call him or herself I.

I tried to 'learn' primary intelligent autistic children to name themself I when referring to themself, but I did not succeed , they kept on talking about themself in the third person.

So, a child has a non-self in those first years of his life.

This non-self is the

Your post lacks science. Your logic lacks logic.

Before I give you a long teaching about Development Psychology (MA Education Psychology, University Freiburg, Germany)

a fact:

A one year old baby in my neighborhood is loved by everyone and he loves everyone, even a Farang. When you take him in your arms and walk around he outstretches his arm and with his index finger points to a dog, to a tree, to a bird.

He wants to know what is what, Thai people answer in Thai, me in English.

One time in my arms he pointed to a big water bottle, I say "water", he answered "naam". The scientific approach to understand the world.

(to point to something is a question)

What you in fact tell is : my post is not built on the same conceptual scientific thinking as yours, and out of your logic you then think you can conclude I 'lack' science.

A young child is not learning the world by thinking but by intuition, when you and other people walk around with a child like that it is not thinking but it is intuitively discovering language and at the end concepts.

A young child never asks you to explain 'water' you cannot explain water to anyone without using concepts out of, related to, other phenomenons.

A young child is 'inside' the experience of water, then it does not need and never asks for any explanation, it is enlighted in the experience.

In giving the child the name water when seeing water, not asking for any expanation but jus the name, the child is inside the name, the language, and is not outside that experience as we become to be when we are out of it as we grow older.

I think one never can understand a child when outside the experience of being a child dwelling in theoretical 'knowledge' about psychology.

To aproach 'being a child' in that scientific theoretical way to my opinion is no Buddhist way at all, since that is completely based on experiencing CHILD and not a scientific concept of it.

[christiaan]

to point to something is communication, communication can be asking a question, but it can also have other meanings.

[healthcaretaker]

to point to something is communication, communication can be asking a question, but it can also have other meanings.

Be honest and stay on topic. Don't try to find excuse to change the topic. I have noticed your trend. Similar in all your posts. When you failed to dispute anyone's message on Buddhism or failed in your attempt to undermine a Buddhism logic, you will change to write something else in the same thread.

Now get back to the point where you tried to "confuse" or think that someone under 3 years old is in a state of nibbana. If you can't even understand a 3 years old, don't attempt to understand Buddhism which is over 2500 tears old.

[christiaan]

to point to something is communication, communication can be asking a question, but it can also have other meanings.

Be honest and stay on topic. Don't try to find excuse to change the topic. I have noticed your trend. Similar in all your posts. When you failed to dispute anyone's message on Buddhism or failed in your attempt to undermine a Buddhism logic, you will change to write something else in the same thread.

Now get back to the point where you tried to "confuse" or think that someone under 3 years old is in a state of nibbana. If you can't even understand a 3 years old, don't attempt to understand Buddhism which is over 2500 tears old.

I would surely apreciate if you would share with us your personal knowledge about the life and awareness of a child within the first 3 years of its life in relation to nibbana.

To my opinion that would be more constructive as your sideline remarks.

[healthcaretaker]

to point to something is communication, communication can be asking a question, but it can also have other meanings.

Be honest and stay on topic. Don't try to find excuse to change the topic. I have noticed your trend. Similar in all your posts. When you failed to dispute anyone's message on Buddhism or failed in your attempt to undermine a Buddhism logic, you will change to write something else in the same thread.

Now get back to the point where you tried to "confuse" or think that someone under 3 years old is in a state of nibbana. If you can't even understand a 3 years old, don't attempt to understand Buddhism which is over 2500 tears old.

I would surely apreciate if you would share with us your personal knowledge about the life and awareness of a child within the first 3 years of its life in relation to nibbana.

To my opinion that would be more constructive as your sideline remarks.

There you go on your same old traits again.

Why do you need to know about my "personal knowledge" ?

Let's talk about general knowledge of Buddhism and Science, not personal knowledge. PM if you wish to get personal.

BTW, it is YOU who brought up the 3 years old and think that his state of mind is similar to nibbana and others don't agree. So you should answer your own question, not me.

I am too busy with other discovery now....just found a thread on Buddhism movies. I think it's the best and most entertaining way to learn about Buddhism, how about joining us there ? It will be good for you.

I am in a very passionate state today. I will like to explain to you why 3 years old and nibbana is different, but not now. Hope otherswill do it for you.

[AYJAYDEE]

he simply asked you to explain how a 3 year old is in a state of nibbana. you didnt do it

[lungmi]

By modern developmental psychology it's proved and accepted worldwide that the binary logic (yes/no) is developed in the brain of a baby between 7 to 10 months : The baby can make the difference between "my mama, my papa, my friend" and "not my mama, my papa, my friend. It's more than a "concept", it's a holistic experience, genetic epistemology.

For more information google "Jean Piaget"

[christiaan]

he simply asked you to explain how a 3 year old is in a state of nibbana. you didnt do it

This is in fact very funny.

To explain HOW a child is in a state of Nibbana?

I wonder about the explanation HOW Buddha is in a state of nibbana.

Does he, healthcaretaker read this forum at all?

There is written one is in a state of nibbana when one is not attached to, deluded by concepts, when one is in a state of non-self. Can he see a baby is?

Not only does the development of a human show -in big steps - the complete evolution of the world and human mankind (again) in its embryological 'time' of existence, when born mainly the body is present on earth in the first time after birth. When one observe the normal development of a child without having sympathy or antipathy for some subjective knowledge/science one can 'see' the child becoming an adult human, not even just an adult human but a personality, a kind of its own. One can see in 'time' the spiritual entity of this specific human is entering more and more its existence on earth and this will continue in the thousand years to come with every new existence on earth in a new body.

I wonder : does one have to study Buddhism to 'see' a human, a child, as some kind of selfdeveloping biological computer with binary (neuro)logical systems?

And consequently thinking, out of this interpretation Buddha has been one of the best biological computers ever been in the world?

When a human is some developing biological computer what is it what makes it (self)developing? The software program?

So Buddhism is a softwareprogramm to make high sophisticated biological computers?

And how could it be selfdeveloping when it has no self?

What a denigration of Buddha and his teachings.

[healthcaretaker]

he simply asked you to explain how a 3 year old is in a state of nibbana. you didnt do it

He kept claiming he is here to ask questions about Buddhism but I see none of the answers provided by others is agrreable to him.

I could have explained to him easily that a 3 years old is near naive, innocent & ignorant but an adult is not, thus the need to seek for nibbana. I know he will not agree too and will use words like "awareness" and "concepts" to camourflage it..

Edited February 22, 2011 by camerata
Personal attack deleted.

[AYJAYDEE]

dodge and weave all u like. but you still havent explained how a child is beyond anicca, dukkha and anatta

he simply asked you to explain how a 3 year old is in a state of nibbana. you didnt do it

This is in fact very funny.

To explain HOW a child is in a state of Nibbana?

I wonder about the explanation HOW Buddha is in a state of nibbana.

Does he, healthcaretaker read this forum at all?

There is written one is in a state of nibbana when one is not attached to, deluded by concepts, when one is in a state of non-self. Can he see a baby is?

Not only does the development of a human show -in big steps - the complete evolution of the world and human mankind (again) in its embryological 'time' of existence, when born mainly the body is present on earth in the first time after birth. When one observe the normal development of a child without having sympathy or antipathy for some subjective knowledge/science one can 'see' the child becoming an adult human, not even just an adult human but a personality, a kind of its own. One can see in 'time' the spiritual entity of this specific human is entering more and more its existence on earth and this will continue in the thousand years to come with every new existence on earth in a new body.

I wonder : does one have to study Buddhism to 'see' a human, a child, as some kind of selfdeveloping biological computer with binary (neuro)logical systems?

And consequently thinking, out of this interpretation Buddha has been one of the best biological computers ever been in the world?

When a human is some developing biological computer what is it what makes it (self)developing? The software program?

So Buddhism is a softwareprogramm to make high sophisticated biological computers?

And how could it be selfdeveloping when it has no self?

What a denigration of Buddha and his teachings.

[AYJAYDEE]

...

Edited February 22, 2011 by camerata
Personal remarks deleted.

[AYJAYDEE]

my apologies. i guess i get a tad frustrated at times. a good subject for meditation!!!

...

[sabaijai]

he simply asked you to explain how a 3 year old is in a state of nibbana. you didnt do it

This is in fact very funny.

To explain HOW a child is in a state of Nibbana?

I wonder about the explanation HOW Buddha is in a state of nibbana.

Does he, healthcaretaker read this forum at all?

There is written one is in a state of nibbana when one is not attached to, deluded by concepts, when one is in a state of non-self. Can he see a baby is?

Not only does the development of a human show -in big steps - the complete evolution of the world and human mankind (again) in its embryological 'time' of existence, when born mainly the body is present on earth in the first time after birth. When one observe the normal development of a child without having sympathy or antipathy for some subjective knowledge/science one can 'see' the child becoming an adult human, not even just an adult human but a personality, a kind of its own. One can see in 'time' the spiritual entity of this specific human is entering more and more its existence on earth and this will continue in the thousand years to come with every new existence on earth in a new body.

I wonder : does one have to study Buddhism to 'see' a human, a child, as some kind of selfdeveloping biological computer with binary (neuro)logical systems?

And consequently thinking, out of this interpretation Buddha has been one of the best biological computers ever been in the world?

When a human is some developing biological computer what is it what makes it (self)developing? The software program?

So Buddhism is a softwareprogramm to make high sophisticated biological computers?

And how could it be selfdeveloping when it has no self?

What a denigration of Buddha and his teachings.

You may call the state of being an infant anything you like, but it is not nibbana in any shape, sense or form. Nibbana has very specific attributes laid out in the Tipitaka. You appear to be making up your own definition so that if fits your example of the child.

As the late Sen Patrick David Moynihan once said, 'You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.'

We have had several long, inconclusive threads already about whether Buddhism is religious or scientific. It is a question which 'tends not to edification', but nonetheless the question can form the basis of an interesting debate.

In this particular occasion, there is too much backbiting going on for it to be of interest to anyone by this point.

I propose that we take a break on this topic for now.

Meanwhile if you'd like to read through the previous threads to note how the same issues and thorns keep coming up, here are the links:

Some of them are still open.