Monks And Money

[Buckaroo]

'Karma' has no place in the scientific community. It cannot be observed, measured or be proven to exist. Its very fundamentals go against reason and logic. It is a fairytale doctrine used to great effect in controlling the masses and ensuring that through fear there is ongoing donations, I mean devotion to the buddhist cult. I mean sect. Thats it, devotion to the sect. Dont know where I got donations to the cult from. Silly me.

Well, I've already explained to you that Karma simply means the law of cause and effect. This is because that is. This is not because that is not.

One thing causes another thing to exist. No thing can exist independently of other things. Do you not believe in cause and effect?

It does not matter how many times you quote your karma statement , without peer tested, scientific proof, for modern man it does not exist.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Buckaroo

[Kananga]

'Karma' has no place in the scientific community. It cannot be observed, measured or be proven to exist. Its very fundamentals go against reason and logic. It is a fairytale doctrine used to great effect in controlling the masses and ensuring that through fear there is ongoing donations, I mean devotion to the buddhist cult. I mean sect. Thats it, devotion to the sect. Dont know where I got donations to the cult from. Silly me.

Well, I've already explained to you that Karma simply means the law of cause and effect. This is because that is. This is not because that is not.

One thing causes another thing to exist. No thing can exist independently of other things. Do you not believe in cause and effect?

There is no 'law' of cause and effect with regard to karma because you are referring to cause and effect in a spiritual sense. That is merely a philosophy. This is different to cause and effect when applied to Newtons principal that everything has an equal and oposite reaction (which can be measured and therefore is proven to exist). They are two different interpretations of cause and effect. You dont seem to be able to see the difference. One is based on fact and doesn't involve 'karma' (which I do believe as it has been proven on a scientific basis) the other is a fairytale mumbo-jumbo philosophy that cannot be proven which I obviously don't believe.

Do you believe in re-incarnation?

Edited May 28, 2013 by Kananga

[Buckaroo]

Atlsbravosfan... (what does that mean?) ..take my teacher's advice, which i should have too.

Do not try to teach those who are obstinate and refuse to listen...you only waste your breath.

It's hard to find truer words. I believe both the Buddha and Jesus said the same thing if I'm not mistaken..

You believe in two invisible friends. And I thought I was a neanderthal.

Both the Buddha and Jesus were real people (although there are doubts about jesus)....it is the god guy who is imaginary.

Real according to people that wrote stories about them long after they had supposedly died, good stories that can teach valuable lessons, but still stories that in one form or another put the fear of the supernatural into ordinary folks, so that they pay up.

[kannot]

There are big doubts about Buddhas existance too.

Not saying you are incorrect about there being 'big doubts' about the existence of the historical Buddha, but do you have any sources for those doubts? I just did a quick search myself and nothing of note turned up; especially not in the way when I google 'people doubt existence of Jesus'

"evidence for Buddha "

https://www.google.com/search?q=buddha&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-GB:%7Breferrer:source%7D&ie=UTF-8&oe=#rls=com.microsoft:en-GB%3A%7Breferrer%3Asource%7D&sclient=psy-ab&q=evidence+for+buddha&oq=evidence+for+buddha&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.2.5030.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.0..1c..12.psy-ab.TKhoHPuF4EI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.bmk&fp=2b1cbd97a4a43fb2&biw=1261&bih=602

[atlbravosfan]

'Karma' has no place in the scientific community. It cannot be observed, measured or be proven to exist. Its very fundamentals go against reason and logic. It is a fairytale doctrine used to great effect in controlling the masses and ensuring that through fear there is ongoing donations, I mean devotion to the buddhist cult. I mean sect. Thats it, devotion to the sect. Dont know where I got donations to the cult from. Silly me.

Well, I've already explained to you that Karma simply means the law of cause and effect. This is because that is. This is not because that is not.

One thing causes another thing to exist. No thing can exist independently of other things. Do you not believe in cause and effect?

There is no 'law' of cause and effect with regard to karma because you are referring to cause and effect in a spiritual sense. That is merely a philosophy. This is different to cause and effect when applied to Newtons principal that everything has an equal and oposite reaction (which can be measured and therefore is proven to exist). They are two different interpretations of cause and effect. You dont seem to be able to see the difference. One is based on fact and doesn't involve 'karma' (which I do believe as it has been proven on a scientific basis) the other is a fairytale mumbo-jumbo philosophy that cannot be proven which I obviously don't believe.

Do you believe in re-incarnation?

Karma is not merely spiritual (rather, immaterial). It also refers to material phenomena as well. The way a plant grows is its karma, inherited from its ancestors as well as environmental factors. Another example I could give for physical karma would be if I stayed up really late watching movies, the next day at work I will be dead tired - that is my karma. Karma can also be thought of like momentum - it is carrying us in particular directions and every action (thought, speech, or bodily) has a particular karma it carries. The fact that you believe karma is purely immaterial shows your lack of understanding of karma, not my lack of understanding of Newton's Laws.

As far as reincarnation goes, Buddha instructed us to use the teaching of non-self in order to dissolve the idea of 'self,' the idea that there is something permanent and unchanging that is inside of us or inside of anything, really. He instructed us to look deeply into any phenomenon and see how it is made up of many different parts. If we look at a flower, we do not see a 'flower' inside of it - instead, we see the rain, the sun, the earth, time, space, nutrients, the seed it came from. Everything we experience is the same way. This teaching is called 'inter-being' - the idea that we are all interconnected to each other, to other animals, to plants, to the earth, to the entire universe. Believe it or not, this is confirmed by science as well: 'We are connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, and to the universe atomically' - Neil Degrasse Tyson.

The Buddha refuted the idea of transmigration, which is a Brahmin teaching - that we have an Atman (soul) that is eternal and unchanging an it moves from life to life. The teaching of no-self is also called 'anatman' (no Atman) or 'anatta.' Keep in mind that this is a tool used to eradicate the idea of self, not to supplant the idea of self with the idea of non-self. Non-self is still just an idea and it is not something we should get caught in. The Buddha's teachings are like a raft - they take us to where we want to go. When we reach the other shore, the raft has outlived its purpose and becomes a burden - it must be let go of in order to fully realize the teachings.

What I personally believe is that our consciousness dies and is reborn from moment to moment as we encounter different sense-impressions. These sense-impressions give rise to mental formations (thoughts, ideas, emotions), which in turn reshape our consciousness. Everything we experience is stored as a seed deep within our consciousness and we received seeds at birth from our parents, passed down through our ancestors. Some of these seeds are physical characteristics, some of them are immaterial characteristics - as in, how we deal with situations, what language we use, even what type of words we use from that language (our diction).

Believe it or not, the Buddha-nature, the ability to become Buddha, is a seed in our store consciousness as well. We all have the ability to become Buddha. That is why, really, it doesn't even matter if there was a historical Buddha or not - because there have been various Buddhas who have lived, who are for sure historical figures with plenty of evidence. Even in this very day we have Buddhas who are living on this earth and helping guide people to the understanding to which they have realized. The Buddha is said to have instructed his students to not get caught on his physical body, the way he looked. If we really wanted to see the Buddha, he said, we should look deeply into the teachings. When we realize the teachings, we will see the real Buddha, the Buddha of our own mind.

[atlbravosfan]

There are big doubts about Buddhas existance too.

Not saying you are incorrect about there being 'big doubts' about the existence of the historical Buddha, but do you have any sources for those doubts? I just did a quick search myself and nothing of note turned up; especially not in the way when I google 'people doubt existence of Jesus'

"evidence for Buddha "

https://www.google.com/search?q=buddha&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-GB:%7Breferrer:source%7D&ie=UTF-8&oe=#rls=com.microsoft:en-GB%3A%7Breferrer%3Asource%7D&sclient=psy-ab&q=evidence+for+buddha&oq=evidence+for+buddha&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.2.5030.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.0..1c..12.psy-ab.TKhoHPuF4EI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.bmk&fp=2b1cbd97a4a43fb2&biw=1261&bih=602

Thanks for posting this by the way. I was wondering if you had something more concrete or a particular website in mind? A lot of these are just random people posting on message boards (... what does that sound like...).

[Kananga]

'Karma' has no place in the scientific community. It cannot be observed, measured or be proven to exist. Its very fundamentals go against reason and logic. It is a fairytale doctrine used to great effect in controlling the masses and ensuring that through fear there is ongoing donations, I mean devotion to the buddhist cult. I mean sect. Thats it, devotion to the sect. Dont know where I got donations to the cult from. Silly me.

Well, I've already explained to you that Karma simply means the law of cause and effect. This is because that is. This is not because that is not.

One thing causes another thing to exist. No thing can exist independently of other things. Do you not believe in cause and effect?

There is no 'law' of cause and effect with regard to karma because you are referring to cause and effect in a spiritual sense. That is merely a philosophy. This is different to cause and effect when applied to Newtons principal that everything has an equal and oposite reaction (which can be measured and therefore is proven to exist). They are two different interpretations of cause and effect. You dont seem to be able to see the difference. One is based on fact and doesn't involve 'karma' (which I do believe as it has been proven on a scientific basis) the other is a fairytale mumbo-jumbo philosophy that cannot be proven which I obviously don't believe.

Do you believe in re-incarnation?

Karma is not merely spiritual (rather, immaterial). It also refers to material phenomena as well. The way a plant grows is its karma, inherited from its ancestors as well as environmental factors. Another example I could give for physical karma would be if I stayed up really late watching movies, the next day at work I will be dead tired - that is my karma. Karma can also be thought of like momentum - it is carrying us in particular directions and every action (thought, speech, or bodily) has a particular karma it carries. The fact that you believe karma is purely immaterial shows your lack of understanding of karma, not my lack of understanding of Newton's Laws.

As far as reincarnation goes, Buddha instructed us to use the teaching of non-self in order to dissolve the idea of 'self,' the idea that there is something permanent and unchanging that is inside of us or inside of anything, really. He instructed us to look deeply into any phenomenon and see how it is made up of many different parts. If we look at a flower, we do not see a 'flower' inside of it - instead, we see the rain, the sun, the earth, time, space, nutrients, the seed it came from. Everything we experience is the same way. This teaching is called 'inter-being' - the idea that we are all interconnected to each other, to other animals, to plants, to the earth, to the entire universe. Believe it or not, this is confirmed by science as well: 'We are connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, and to the universe atomically' - Neil Degrasse Tyson.

The Buddha refuted the idea of transmigration, which is a Brahmin teaching - that we have an Atman (soul) that is eternal and unchanging an it moves from life to life. The teaching of no-self is also called 'anatman' (no Atman) or 'anatta.' Keep in mind that this is a tool used to eradicate the idea of self, not to supplant the idea of self with the idea of non-self. Non-self is still just an idea and it is not something we should get caught in. The Buddha's teachings are like a raft - they take us to where we want to go. When we reach the other shore, the raft has outlived its purpose and becomes a burden - it must be let go of in order to fully realize the teachings.

What I personally believe is that our consciousness dies and is reborn from moment to moment as we encounter different sense-impressions. These sense-impressions give rise to mental formations (thoughts, ideas, emotions), which in turn reshape our consciousness. Everything we experience is stored as a seed deep within our consciousness and we received seeds at birth from our parents, passed down through our ancestors. Some of these seeds are physical characteristics, some of them are immaterial characteristics - as in, how we deal with situations, what language we use, even what type of words we use from that language (our diction).

Believe it or not, the Buddha-nature, the ability to become Buddha, is a seed in our store consciousness as well. We all have the ability to become Buddha. That is why, really, it doesn't even matter if there was a historical Buddha or not - because there have been various Buddhas who have lived, who are for sure historical figures with plenty of evidence. Even in this very day we have Buddhas who are living on this earth and helping guide people to the understanding to which they have realized. The Buddha is said to have instructed his students to not get caught on his physical body, the way he looked. If we really wanted to see the Buddha, he said, we should look deeply into the teachings. When we realize the teachings, we will see the real Buddha, the Buddha of our own mind.

No. The way a plant grows is its genetics. Genetics, unlike karma can also be proved scientifically. If you stay up really late and are tired the next day the effect is biological, not karma. Biology, unlike karma can also be proved scientifically. You are just choosing to use the word karma to attempt to explain biological actions. You are still attempting to pass off philosophy as fact. Which it isnt.

~~~What I personally believe is that our consciousness dies and is reborn from moment to moment~~~

LOL. At least you now accept that this is only your personal belief and cannot be proven scientifically and is therefore open to doubt (and ridicule). You carry on looking for that buddha in your own mind. Be sure to tell us when you find him.

[kannot]

'Karma' has no place in the scientific community. It cannot be observed, measured or be proven to exist. Its very fundamentals go against reason and logic. It is a fairytale doctrine used to great effect in controlling the masses and ensuring that through fear there is ongoing donations, I mean devotion to the buddhist cult. I mean sect. Thats it, devotion to the sect. Dont know where I got donations to the cult from. Silly me.

Well, I've already explained to you that Karma simply means the law of cause and effect. This is because that is. This is not because that is not.

One thing causes another thing to exist. No thing can exist independently of other things. Do you not believe in cause and effect?

There is no 'law' of cause and effect with regard to karma because you are referring to cause and effect in a spiritual sense. That is merely a philosophy. This is different to cause and effect when applied to Newtons principal that everything has an equal and oposite reaction (which can be measured and therefore is proven to exist). They are two different interpretations of cause and effect. You dont seem to be able to see the difference. One is based on fact and doesn't involve 'karma' (which I do believe as it has been proven on a scientific basis) the other is a fairytale mumbo-jumbo philosophy that cannot be proven which I obviously don't believe.

Do you believe in re-incarnation?

Karma is not merely spiritual (rather, immaterial). It also refers to material phenomena as well. The way a plant grows is its karma, inherited from its ancestors as well as environmental factors. Another example I could give for physical karma would be if I stayed up really late watching movies, the next day at work I will be dead tired - that is my karma. Karma can also be thought of like momentum - it is carrying us in particular directions and every action (thought, speech, or bodily) has a particular karma it carries. The fact that you believe karma is purely immaterial shows your lack of understanding of karma, not my lack of understanding of Newton's Laws.

As far as reincarnation goes, Buddha instructed us to use the teaching of non-self in order to dissolve the idea of 'self,' the idea that there is something permanent and unchanging that is inside of us or inside of anything, really. He instructed us to look deeply into any phenomenon and see how it is made up of many different parts. If we look at a flower, we do not see a 'flower' inside of it - instead, we see the rain, the sun, the earth, time, space, nutrients, the seed it came from. Everything we experience is the same way. This teaching is called 'inter-being' - the idea that we are all interconnected to each other, to other animals, to plants, to the earth, to the entire universe. Believe it or not, this is confirmed by science as well: 'We are connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, and to the universe atomically' - Neil Degrasse Tyson.

The Buddha refuted the idea of transmigration, which is a Brahmin teaching - that we have an Atman (soul) that is eternal and unchanging an it moves from life to life. The teaching of no-self is also called 'anatman' (no Atman) or 'anatta.' Keep in mind that this is a tool used to eradicate the idea of self, not to supplant the idea of self with the idea of non-self. Non-self is still just an idea and it is not something we should get caught in. The Buddha's teachings are like a raft - they take us to where we want to go. When we reach the other shore, the raft has outlived its purpose and becomes a burden - it must be let go of in order to fully realize the teachings.

What I personally believe is that our consciousness dies and is reborn from moment to moment as we encounter different sense-impressions. These sense-impressions give rise to mental formations (thoughts, ideas, emotions), which in turn reshape our consciousness. Everything we experience is stored as a seed deep within our consciousness and we received seeds at birth from our parents, passed down through our ancestors. Some of these seeds are physical characteristics, some of them are immaterial characteristics - as in, how we deal with situations, what language we use, even what type of words we use from that language (our diction).

Believe it or not, the Buddha-nature, the ability to become Buddha, is a seed in our store consciousness as well. We all have the ability to become Buddha. That is why, really, it doesn't even matter if there was a historical Buddha or not - because there have been various Buddhas who have lived, who are for sure historical figures with plenty of evidence. Even in this very day we have Buddhas who are living on this earth and helping guide people to the understanding to which they have realized. The Buddha is said to have instructed his students to not get caught on his physical body, the way he looked. If we really wanted to see the Buddha, he said, we should look deeply into the teachings. When we realize the teachings, we will see the real Buddha, the Buddha of our own mind.

Here is an interesting program on consciousness.

[kannot]

There are big doubts about Buddhas existance too.

Not saying you are incorrect about there being 'big doubts' about the existence of the historical Buddha, but do you have any sources for those doubts? I just did a quick search myself and nothing of note turned up; especially not in the way when I google 'people doubt existence of Jesus'

"evidence for Buddha "

https://www.google.com/search?q=buddha&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-GB:%7Breferrer:source%7D&ie=UTF-8&oe=#rls=com.microsoft:en-GB%3A%7Breferrer%3Asource%7D&sclient=psy-ab&q=evidence+for+buddha&oq=evidence+for+buddha&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.2.5030.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.0..1c..12.psy-ab.TKhoHPuF4EI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.bmk&fp=2b1cbd97a4a43fb2&biw=1261&bih=602

Thanks for posting this by the way. I was wondering if you had something more concrete or a particular website in mind? A lot of these are just random people posting on message boards (... what does that sound like...).

Yes many are just people blathering on, this one is interesting though, you need to scroll down to the last few sentences.

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/historical-buddha.html

[atlbravosfan]

Thanks for posting this by the way. I was wondering if you had something more concrete or a particular website in mind? A lot of these are just random people posting on message boards (... what does that sound like...).

Yes many are just people blathering on, this one is interesting though, you need to scroll down to the last few sentences.

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/historical-buddha.html

Thanks again for pointing me in a clearer direction.

As I'm sure you saw in my response to the other poster, it really doesn't matter if he was real or not; it is the teachings, the Dharma, that really matters. All the other stuff is just for interest's sake!

[atlbravosfan]

In reference to the many names of Buddha, the one he purportedly preferred toward the end of his life was 'Tathagatha' which has dual meaning:

'One who has thus gone'
'One who has thus come'

I think this was done to remove the meaning of the word 'Buddha' which means 'Awakened One' as the 'One' implies separation and an independent ego-entity. Tathagatha shows the conquest over dualistic thinking by simultaneously expressing seemingly opposing ideas - going and coming.

Edited May 28, 2013 by atlbravosfan

[muythai2013]

no Buddhist should worship the Buddha.

He is a guide, a teacher to look to as he has experienced already what we are seeking.

He is honoured as a teacher, not a God, and he can guide us through his teachings, every mans journey is different.

My Buddhism is not yours and yours is not mine, Ours is not Buddha's, all our journeys will progress very differently.

[phuturatica]

I'm under the impression that Monks actually have a lot of disposable income due to donations given to Temples and whatnot.

My friends boyfriend went to be a Monk and he came back with more money than he started!

Also, not really money related, but when I did a Buddhist retreat and stayed in a Thai Monastery with the Thai nuns, I was really surprised at how much food gets offered in alms. They literally have a feast of food and there is so much food offered!

They're certainly not hard done by!

[muythai2013]

I'm under the impression that Monks actually have a lot of disposable income due to donations given to Temples and whatnot.

My friends boyfriend went to be a Monk and he came back with more money than he started!

Also, not really money related, but when I did a Buddhist retreat and stayed in a Thai Monastery with the Thai nuns, I was really surprised at how much food gets offered in alms. They literally have a feast of food and there is so much food offered!

They're certainly not hard done by!

should they be hard done by in your opinion, yes or no.

[BuddhistVirus]

Nice discussion going on here...

'Karma' has no place in the scientific community. It cannot be observed, measured or be proven to exist. Its very fundamentals go against reason and logic. It is a fairytale doctrine used to great effect in controlling the masses and ensuring that through fear there is ongoing donations, I mean devotion to the buddhist cult. I mean sect. Thats it, devotion to the sect. Dont know where I got donations to the cult from. Silly me.

Well, I've already explained to you that Karma simply means the law of cause and effect. This is because that is. This is not because that is not.

One thing causes another thing to exist. No thing can exist independently of other things. Do you not believe in cause and effect?

There is no 'law' of cause and effect with regard to karma because you are referring to cause and effect in a spiritual sense. That is merely a philosophy. This is different to cause and effect when applied to Newtons principal that everything has an equal and oposite reaction (which can be measured and therefore is proven to exist). They are two different interpretations of cause and effect. You dont seem to be able to see the difference. One is based on fact and doesn't involve 'karma' (which I do believe as it has been proven on a scientific basis) the other is a fairytale mumbo-jumbo philosophy that cannot be proven which I obviously don't believe.

Do you believe in re-incarnation?

You guys are MORE Buddhists than the so-called Buddhists...

[atlbravosfan]

No. The way a plant grows is its genetics. Genetics, unlike karma can also be proved scientifically. If you stay up really late and are tired the next day the effect is biological, not karma. Biology, unlike karma can also be proved scientifically. You are just choosing to use the word karma to attempt to explain biological actions. You are still attempting to pass off philosophy as fact. Which it isnt.

~~~What I personally believe is that our consciousness dies and is reborn from moment to moment~~~

LOL. At least you now accept that this is only your personal belief and cannot be proven scientifically and is therefore open to doubt (and ridicule). You carry on looking for that buddha in your own mind. Be sure to tell us when you find him.

You seem to be really hung up on the naming of things. Do you not understand how to different cultures can have two different ways of saying the same thing? That perhaps speaking to a group of people who lived 2500 years ago, it makes more sense for someone to use language that they can actually understand rather than some language that had not even been invented yet for that culture?

To give you an even more obvious and clear example, what I call 'up' others call 'down.' What I call 'down' others call 'up.' Am I right and they are wrong? Or are they wrong and I am right? Or are we both right and we just use different words, that actually seem to be opposites? Or are we both wrong and there is no 'up' or 'down'?

Since you seem to be all about science and scientists and completely distrusting of anything else, see what Richard Feynman's take on this is... or do you suppose you understand the science better than he does?

Also, the 'Buddha-within' is not 'him.' It is not a being, it is not non-being, it is beyond duality and dualistic thinking. It is not something I have to 'look for' either; it is something that arises as a natural result of a process, cause and effect. A caterpillar doesn't have to look for ways to become a butterfly - that happens as a natural process of cause and effect. A tree does not have to look for ways to grow fruit - that happens as a natural process of cause and effect.

The Buddha is not something you can conceive of nor that you can talk about. It is only something that can be experienced - like everything else in our lives. I could never tell someone who had not tasted an orange before what the complete experience of eating an orange is. The only way for them to know it is to experience it themselves.

Believe it or not, there is a lot of scientific research being conducted on meditation and on the effects it has on consciousness, but keep on believing that I'm the one with backward thinking not open to new ideas or to questioning the ideas I already hold.

Edited May 29, 2013 by atlbravosfan

[Kananga]

~~~A caterpillar doesn't have to look for ways to become a butterfly - that happens as a natural process of cause and effect.~~~

No. That happens through biological changes that happen naturally throughout its lifespan. Its not cause and effect. It didnt have a an action (cause) that created a reaction (effect) otherwise some caterpillars would not become butterflies based on their actions. As they all do regardless of how they conduct their little lives cause and effect doesnt enter into it. You can try and argue with facts all you want, but it really isnt working.

~~~To give you an even more obvious and clear example, what I call 'up' others call 'down.' What I call 'down' others call 'up.' Am I right and they are wrong? Or are they wrong and I am right? Or are we both right and we just use different words, that actually seem to be opposites? Or are we both wrong and there is no 'up' or 'down'?~~~

The meaning of the word up -

(1) : in or into a higher position or level; especially : away from the center of the earth (2) : from beneath the ground or water to the surface (3) : from below the horizon (4) :upstream 1 (5) : in or into an upright position <sit up>;especially : out of bed

If you were referring to any of these actions and using the word 'down' you were wrong. If you were referring to any of these actions as 'up' and others were referring to them as 'down' they were wrong. Crazy huh?

~~~The Buddha is not something you can conceive of nor that you can talk about. It is only something that can be experienced - like everything else in our lives.~~~

Absolute rubbish. We're talking about him now. As for not being able to talk about anything in your life you havent experienced, absolute rubbish too. You were just talking about caterpillars becoming butterflies I assume you are not a butterfly and have therefore not personally experienced the metamorphosis of changing into a butterfly. Yet you have just clearly just talked about it. Spouting off these easily refutable phrases isn't making you look knowledgable in any state. In fact you look quite ridiculous. Which ironically is a great example of cause and effect based on what you are spouting out.

~~~You seem to be really hung up on the naming of things.~~~

Yep. Thats what people who know what they are talking about do. They use names and words they understand the meaning of.

[muythai2013]

I challenge anyone to head down town now and find a policeman, punch him square in the jaw.

Then tell me Karma does not exist.

It's a way of good living and good thought, and as a result you will not bring any unwarranted negativity on yourself.

[Buckaroo]

No. The way a plant grows is its genetics. Genetics, unlike karma can also be proved scientifically. If you stay up really late and are tired the next day the effect is biological, not karma. Biology, unlike karma can also be proved scientifically. You are just choosing to use the word karma to attempt to explain biological actions. You are still attempting to pass off philosophy as fact. Which it isnt.

~~~What I personally believe is that our consciousness dies and is reborn from moment to moment~~~

LOL. At least you now accept that this is only your personal belief and cannot be proven scientifically and is therefore open to doubt (and ridicule). You carry on looking for that buddha in your own mind. Be sure to tell us when you find him.

You seem to be really hung up on the naming of things. Do you not understand how to different cultures can have two different ways of saying the same thing? That perhaps speaking to a group of people who lived 2500 years ago, it makes more sense for someone to use language that they can actually understand rather than some language that had not even been invented yet for that culture?

To give you an even more obvious and clear example, what I call 'up' others call 'down.' What I call 'down' others call 'up.' Am I right and they are wrong? Or are they wrong and I am right? Or are we both right and we just use different words, that actually seem to be opposites? Or are we both wrong and there is no 'up' or 'down'?

Since you seem to be all about science and scientists and completely distrusting of anything else, see what Richard Feynman's take on this is... or do you suppose you understand the science better than he does?

Also, the 'Buddha-within' is not 'him.' It is not a being, it is not non-being, it is beyond duality and dualistic thinking. It is not something I have to 'look for' either; it is something that arises as a natural result of a process, cause and effect. A caterpillar doesn't have to look for ways to become a butterfly - that happens as a natural process of cause and effect. A tree does not have to look for ways to grow fruit - that happens as a natural process of cause and effect.

The Buddha is not something you can conceive of nor that you can talk about. It is only something that can be experienced - like everything else in our lives. I could never tell someone who had not tasted an orange before what the complete experience of eating an orange is. The only way for them to know it is to experience it themselves.

Believe it or not, there is a lot of scientific research being conducted on meditation and on the effects it has on consciousness, but keep on believing that I'm the one with backward thinking not open to new ideas or to questioning the ideas I already hold.

If I were speaking to a group 2500 years ago I would use their language, if their language did not have the vocabulary needed, I would show them. Say I was to make some butter (which I am just about to do), and I was to show a group of people without the vocabulary how to do this, then I would give a practical presentation. I would let them see that the fat rises to the top because it is lighter by showing them fat in different liquids; or by using a simple crossbar scales to compare the weight of liquid fat to water by volume. Basically I would show them via repeatable method. I certainly would not suggest it was due to the karma of the fat, or that it happened because some deity is happy that we slaughtered the sheep that fat came from. Of course this does mean that right hand man of the deity goes hungry.

To give an even more obvious and clear example, up and down, I would release a weight to see where it goes, where it goes is down, as it is attracted by the gravitational mass of the largest thing local to it. In the language of today that is down, you may call it what you like, but I like to call it the same as everyone else, that way there's less confusion and less opportunity for charlatans to prey on those that do not know. This can be shown anywhere at anytime as simply as releasing a rock from the hand, it is peer tested experimentation with a known result. This is what I would be teaching so people could develop and investigate on their own, it's not because of some superstition that you can pay me 1 gold piece for, to continue my your good fortune.

In the video, what is being discussed, is that we may call something by a name but we do not know why it is, an example of this is gravity (see above) we do not know why there is what we call gravity, but we may one day via scientific research. I don't think we will learn what it actually is by reading stories made up about people hundreds of years after they died. But sure, slaughter another sheep, pass it on to the man / conveyor / conduit and he'll eat it in the deities name so that you will not crushed down by the force of gravity, mind you, he may have trouble walking around himself after eating all that meat.

Of course a caterpillar doesn't look to become a butterfly, it's genetics, by telling people it's spiritual or karma you are holding them back.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Buckaroo

[Kananga]

I challenge anyone to head down town now and find a policeman, punch him square in the jaw.

Then tell me Karma does not exist.

It's a way of good living and good thought, and as a result you will not bring any unwarranted negativity on yourself.

Poor example. What if I punched him in the jaw and I was arrested and put in jail, like the effect you are assuming would happen as being good karma, yet unknown to you that Policeman abused his authority (like so many do here) and me punching him and putting him in hospital stopped him from extorting people. Yet I still go to jail for effectively saving poor people from being extorted so they can continue to feed their children. Uh-oh! Its karma conundrum time!

It really doesnt exist. Things don't happen for a reason. Things just happen. Sometimes the guilty get caught and are punished, sometimes they get away with it. If they never got away with it then you may have some evidence for your belief. But as I can prove that many people do bad things and do get away with it till they die I'll continue to believe that karma is a load of rubbish. Until you can prove otherwise of course.

A good way of living and good thought is to do good deeds without having to worry or believe that some sort of spiritual justice system is going to take care of things. Just be good. Its really not that difficult.

[atlbravosfan]

~~~A caterpillar doesn't have to look for ways to become a butterfly - that happens as a natural process of cause and effect.~~~

No. That happens through biological changes that happen naturally throughout its lifespan. Its not cause and effect. It didnt have a an action (cause) that created a reaction (effect) otherwise some caterpillars would not become butterflies based on their actions. As they all do regardless of how they conduct their little lives cause and effect doesnt enter into it. You can try and argue with facts all you want, but it really isnt working.

~~~To give you an even more obvious and clear example, what I call 'up' others call 'down.' What I call 'down' others call 'up.' Am I right and they are wrong? Or are they wrong and I am right? Or are we both right and we just use different words, that actually seem to be opposites? Or are we both wrong and there is no 'up' or 'down'?~~~

The meaning of the word up -

(1) : in or into a higher position or level; especially : away from the center of the earth (2) : from beneath the ground or water to the surface (3) : from below the horizon (4) :upstream 1 (5) : in or into an upright position <sit up>;especially : out of bed

If you were referring to any of these actions and using the word 'down' you were wrong. If you were referring to any of these actions as 'up' and others were referring to them as 'down' they were wrong. Crazy huh?

~~~The Buddha is not something you can conceive of nor that you can talk about. It is only something that can be experienced - like everything else in our lives.~~~

Absolute rubbish. We're talking about him now. As for not being able to talk about anything in your life you havent experienced, absolute rubbish too. You were just talking about caterpillars becoming butterflies I assume you are not a butterfly and have therefore not personally experienced the metamorphosis of changing into a butterfly. Yet you have just clearly just talked about it. Spouting off these easily refutable phrases isn't making you look knowledgable in any state. In fact you look quite ridiculous. Which ironically is a great example of cause and effect based on what you are spouting out.

~~~You seem to be really hung up on the naming of things.~~~

Yep. Thats what people who know what they are talking about do. They use names and words they understand the meaning of.

So, what I call 'up' a person standing on the other side of the earth would also refer to that direction as 'up'? No, they would actually refer to the direction I am pointing in as 'down'. My 'up' is their 'down,' my 'down' is their 'up.' It's really not that difficult to understand the point I am making. 'Up' and 'Down' come from my own perspective and vantage point. Crazy huh?

~~~Absolute rubbish. We're talking about him now.~~~

Again with the point about 'Buddha' - you are hung up on the idea of the man, the historical Buddha. I am not talking about the historical Buddha, I am talking about the understanding to which he attained, an understanding that is attainable for all of us. That is what is meant by 'Buddha.'

I also discussed how words are not the Truth, they cannot express the Truth. I gave you the example of someone who had never eaten an orange; if they wanted to know what the experience of eating an orange is, they can only taste it for themselves. This is what I mean when I say that concepts are limited and do not express the Truth. I can give analogies about things, but have I directly experienced what it feels like to transform into a butterfly? Have you? Can you tell me about it in words so that I will have a complete understanding of that experience? Did my words about a caterpillar's transition or the growth of fruit from a tree give you the understanding that a butterfly or a tree has about those experiences?

~~~No. That happens through biological changes that happen naturally throughout its lifespan. Its not cause and effect. It didnt have a an action (cause) that created a reaction (effect) otherwise some caterpillars would not become butterflies based on their actions. As they all do regardless of how they conduct their little lives cause and effect doesnt enter into it. You can try and argue with facts all you want, but it really isnt working.~~~

You must be some world-renowned naturalist with that type of insight. Really? All caterpillars become butterflies? What about the caterpillars that are eaten? What about ones that are suffocated by juices from plants they are eating? Those guys become butterflies? Or maybe, there is some cause and effect relationship involved in the caterpillar's development. Did the food the caterpillar ingested help it along the process? Or do caterpillars just eat for fun? Was there an initial cause that brought the caterpillar into existence? Or do caterpillars just magically appear out of thin air? Keep spinning away spin master...

~~~Yep. Thats what people who know what they are talking about do. They use names and words they understand the meaning of.~~~

Yep, that's why I use the term 'karma' - because I understand the meaning of the term, something that seems to be escaping you for some reason. I'd guess it is because of the barrier of knowledge - you think you already got it all figured out and that you can't learn from these teachings so you just close your mind off to the possibility. You probably didn't even watch the Feynman video, or else you'd know the difference between 'knowing something' and 'knowing the name of something.'

What's ironic is that you clearly understand that the universe is based on cause and effect and yet you refute it time and time again. Oh right, because you don't believe in Karma... which means cause and effect... which you agree with...

You seem like an intelligent person, but you also seem to be obstinately refusing to understand the simplest of terms and the simplest of relationships possible. Karma means cause and effect; nothing in this universe exists without cause and all causes are in turn effects from prior causes.

[atlbravosfan]

If I were speaking to a group 2500 years ago I would use their language, if their language did not have the vocabulary needed, I would show them. Say I was to make some butter (which I am just about to do), and I was to show a group of people without the vocabulary how to do this, then I would give a practical presentation. I would let them see that the fat rises to the top because it is lighter by showing them fat in different liquids; or by using a simple crossbar scales to compare the weight of liquid fat to water by volume. Basically I would show them via repeatable method. I certainly would not suggest it was due to the karma of the fat, or that it happened because some deity is happy that we slaughtered the sheep that fat came from. Of course this does mean that right hand man of the deity goes hungry.

To give an even more obvious and clear example, up and down, I would release a weight to see where it goes, where it goes is down, as it is attracted by the gravitational mass of the largest thing local to it. In the language of today that is down, you may call it what you like, but I like to call it the same as everyone else, that way there's less confusion and less opportunity for charlatans to prey on those that do not know. This can be shown anywhere at anytime as simply as releasing a rock from the hand, it is peer tested experimentation with a known result. This is what I would be teaching so people could develop and investigate on their own, it's not because of some superstition that you can pay me 1 gold piece for, to continue my your good fortune.

In the video, what is being discussed, is that we may call something by a name but we do not know why it is, an example of this is gravity (see above) we do not know why there is what we call gravity, but we may one day via scientific research. I don't think we will learn what it actually is by reading stories made up about people hundreds of years after they died. But sure, slaughter another sheep, pass it on to the man / conveyor / conduit and he'll eat it in the deities name so that you will not crushed down by the force of gravity, mind you, he may have trouble walking around himself after eating all that meat.

Of course a caterpillar doesn't look to become a butterfly, it's genetics, by telling people it's spiritual or karma you are holding them back.

You must have missed my previous responses to Kananga. Karma is not purely spiritual, it is also a physical reality. Karma simply means cause and effect. We can study the underlying causes of something and understand how we reached the effect we currently have.

If we study the properties of the butter, we will see what makes butter rise to the top of water. Don't get hung up on the term 'karma' being a spiritual or immaterial thing. It reflects on both immaterial and material realities, neither of which can be denied. We are living in both of these worlds simultaneously and karma takes effect in both worlds simultaneously.

There is nothing about Buddha's teachings on karma which discuss some deity being the reason things happen. Buddha simply states - this is because that is. This is not because that is not.

Now again, to the 'idea' of up and down, this is simply an idea coming from our own perspective, our own vantage point. If I were to point up in the sky, all the people around me would agree that I was pointing in the direction called 'up'. If I were to point down to the earth, everyone around me would agree that I was pointing in the direction called 'down.' On the opposite side of the earth, my up is their down, my down is their up. Up and down are brought about due to my own mind - they are merely abstract concepts used to help us grapple with the world around us and to communicate with each other. They are not solid, they are very fluid. Now, this is not about the 'definition' of up and down, it is more about the practical experience of what I call up and what I call down.

In the video, Feynman is also discussing how we have many terms for the same thing and that just because different cultures and people use different terms, it doesn't really make one of the terms more or less correct.

Karma means cause and effect. If we taught people about a cause and effect based world, I doubt any of you would object to that teaching - or do you believe that things happen without cause? Simply, by not understanding what the meaning of 'karma' is, doesn't make karma any less relevant or important of a teaching. Karma is just a name, just a label applied to an experience, something that is observable and can be tested again and again by any person anywhere at any time. Isn't that what 'science' is?

[Kananga]

~~~So, what I call 'up' a person standing on the other side of the earth would also refer to that direction as 'up'? No, they would actually refer to the direction I am pointing in as 'down'. My 'up' is their 'down,' my 'down' is their 'up.' It's really not that difficult to understand the point I am making. 'Up' and 'Down' come from my own perspective and vantage point. Crazy huh?~~~

Not crazy. Incorrect. As regardless of were you were positioned on the planet you would be (1) : in or into a higher position or level; especially : away from the center of the earth

Try again.

~~~I am talking about the understanding to which he attained, an understanding that is attainable for all of us. That is what is meant by 'Buddha.'~~~

Nom thats what you mean by Buddha. I'm using the the understanding based on the definition in the dictionary.

~~~What's ironic is that you clearly understand that the universe is based on cause and effect and yet you refute it time and time again. Oh right, because you don't believe in Karma... which means cause and effect... which you agree with...~~~

Please re-read my previous reply

There is no 'law' of cause and effect with regard to karma because you are referring to cause and effect in a spiritual sense. That is merely a philosophy. This is different to cause and effect when applied to Newtons principal that everything has an equal and oposite reaction (which can be measured and therefore is proven to exist). They are two different interpretations of cause and effect. You dont seem to be able to see the difference. One is based on fact and doesn't involve 'karma' (which I do believe as it has been proven on a scientific basis) the other is a fairytale mumbo-jumbo philosophy that cannot be proven which I obviously don't believe.

Oops. You must have forgotten I've already nailed you to the wall on that one. I've highlighted the important bits. Focus on those to make sure you understand this time.

~~~You seem like an intelligent person, but you also seem to be obstinately refusing to understand the simplest of terms and the simplest of relationships possible.~~~

Thats because your interpretation of simplist terms and relationships are merely unmeasurable philosophies that I disagree with.

[atlbravosfan]

~~~Things don't happen for a reason. Things just happen.~~~

Wow, so you must believe in God then, huh? If things don't happen for a reason (as in, there is no cause behind the event occurring) you must have no problem with the existence of God the creator of the entire Universe!

Look everyone! It's magic! Things just happen without cause! I got sick for no reason! My dog died for no reason! I broke my arm for no reason!

[atlbravosfan]

~~~There is no 'law' of cause and effect with regard to karma because you are referring to cause and effect in a spiritual sense. That is merely a philosophy. This is different to cause and effect when applied to Newtons principal that everything has an equal and oposite reaction (which can be measured and therefore is proven to exist). They are two different interpretations of cause and effect. You dont seem to be able to see the difference. One is based on fact and doesn't involve 'karma' (which I do believe as it has been proven on a scientific basis) the other is a fairytale mumbo-jumbo philosophy that cannot be proven which I obviously don't believe.~~~

Interesting choice of bolded words... notice how I italicized and underlined an important section you conveniently left out - I'm not talking about cause and effect only in a 'spiritual sense.' Yes, cause and effect takes place in an immaterial way, but it also takes effect in a material way. Karma refers to the cause and effect relationship of both material and immaterial worlds. You are the one with the one-sided argument as you only take into consideration the material world and completely ignore the immaterial world.

An example of an immaterial world - your thoughts, your emotions, your ideas. Are you going to refute that those terms are immaterial? If I were to break open my head, would thoughts come spilling out?

Again, there is a lot of research being done recently on the physical effects of meditation - basically, what effects our thoughts have on the way our brain operates and reshapes itself. It's called neuroplasticity and it is occurring with every passing thought in your mind. That is based on observable fact, verified by independent research over the course of many years. Want to refute that one?

The immaterial has an effect on the material and the material has an effect on the immaterial. Again, a pretty obvious fact that you yourself can, and do, experience on a daily basis.

You sure nailed me to the wall on that one!! Was that focused enough for you?

It's cute that you think you can look up the word 'Buddha' in the dictionary and understand all the complex ways that term can be applied. I mean, obviously the dictionary is the go-to source to understand philosophy.

Also, convenient that you had no response at all about how all caterpillars become butterflies and that causes and effects have no role to play in whether or not the develop...

[Buckaroo]

~~~Things don't happen for a reason. Things just happen.~~~

Wow, so you must believe in God then, huh? If things don't happen for a reason (as in, there is no cause behind the event occurring) you must have no problem with the existence of God the creator of the entire Universe!

Look everyone! It's magic! Things just happen without cause! I got sick for no reason! My dog died for no reason! I broke my arm for no reason!

The creation of everything is unexplainable as we do not have the scientific knowledge available to us yet, possibly because we have been following ancient texts.

[Kananga]

~~~It's cute that you think you can look up the word 'Buddha' in the dictionary and understand all the complex ways that term can be applied. I mean, obviously the dictionary is the go-to source to understand philosophy.~~~

Finally. You admit you are referring to your own philosophy and not facts.

~~~Also, convenient that you had no response at all about how all caterpillars become butterflies and that causes and effects have no role to play in whether or not the develop~~~

Sorry, I got bored repeating myself refuting my disagreement with your admitted philosophies. I deal in facts.

[Kananga]

~~~Things don't happen for a reason. Things just happen.~~~

Wow, so you must believe in God then, huh? If things don't happen for a reason (as in, there is no cause behind the event occurring) you must have no problem with the existence of God the creator of the entire Universe!

Look everyone! It's magic! Things just happen without cause! I got sick for no reason! My dog died for no reason! I broke my arm for no reason!

No, I dont believe in gods or a creator of the universe. I also dont believe your strange philosophies either.

[atlbravosfan]

~~~Things don't happen for a reason. Things just happen.~~~

Wow, so you must believe in God then, huh? If things don't happen for a reason (as in, there is no cause behind the event occurring) you must have no problem with the existence of God the creator of the entire Universe!

Look everyone! It's magic! Things just happen without cause! I got sick for no reason! My dog died for no reason! I broke my arm for no reason!

No, I dont believe in gods or a creator of the universe. I also dont believe your strange philosophies either.

Yeah, that strange philosophy of cause and effect. Totally not true.

[atlbravosfan]

~~~Things don't happen for a reason. Things just happen.~~~

Wow, so you must believe in God then, huh? If things don't happen for a reason (as in, there is no cause behind the event occurring) you must have no problem with the existence of God the creator of the entire Universe!

Look everyone! It's magic! Things just happen without cause! I got sick for no reason! My dog died for no reason! I broke my arm for no reason!

The creation of everything is unexplainable as we do not have the scientific knowledge available to us yet, possibly because we have been following ancient texts.

Or possibly because we lacked the technology to investigate certain aspects of existence? Perhaps it's because science can't actually deliver answers to all the questions because some of the questions are unanswerable?