No it just means that God is more than can be expressed in a single philosophy.
Yeah it is really well established. Were it not the MRI in your local hospital wouldn’t work. Its based on QM.
You are mistaken, what it says is that fundamental truths at our scale of life break down at other scales. Cause sometimes follows after effect.
No not meaningless, just counter intuitive. QM is very counter-intuitive. So is Relativity.
A++ in my opinion, especially paragraphs 16,21 and 27-29.
reading this post just brings up more questions for me. In the line of thought of heading towards perfection a person refuses to kill and animal for food…there is nothing odd about this. yet animals kill eachother for food. what does buddhism teach in terms of animal life (for example free will). but when i think about the direction and ultimate goal i dont see how a plant isnt considered equally sacred as a living animal. for example, picking a flower should be a form of murder in this light. Same for picking a fruit or veggie, it is a living thing that can reproduce, it seeks water and light for food, good soil to live in, etc.
Its one thing to be counter intuitive, it is quite another to be irrational.
Gottle of Geer said:
Yes, animals kill and eat each other out of necessity and ignorance. They have no other way to live their lives. Humans, on the other hand can make better choices and more compassionate choices. Nothing is “sacred” in the same respect as you may think. Everything has value.
Gottle of Geer said:
Consciousness means to be aware of, having knowledge, the state or condition of being conscious. All definitions show conscious belongs to some being. One has to be in order to have a conscience. So who does this consciousness belong to if there is no being whether body or soul?
What do you mean moot point? We all learn from the past in order to improve ourselves. I know I did something wrong last week, so I try to avoid it. We must know what it was that need correcting in order to change so how can something change right now when I don’t know what needs changing in my past life. How can I change my future when I don’t know what the future will bring? So all those people that hope to reach enlightenment simply have no assurance whether they are getting close or not. So if nobody knows their past life, then Joe Blow here who claims he used to be Marie Antionette because his neck is always hurting and others who “know” what their previous life was are simply living a lie. We know we should not worry about the past, but we learn from it.
God has revealed Himself to us in a very personal way and we learn through Jesus to call God “abba” father. So how can an impersonal force or law for that matter exist. Somebody or someone has to create laws. Laws don’t just pop up by themselves. God has neither beginning nor end. He is the creator of all, even the law of gravity. A law has to be established by custom, agreement or authority. Law cannot simply exist.
How can somebody learn by themselves without a teacher? If a child does not know the difference between right and wrong, how will the child ever learn by him or herself? Sorry but this statement from Buddha makes no sense at all.
and then
Our concept isnt flawed. Simply because we are not able to comprehend God, doesnt make that understanding flawed. “As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.” We are finite beings, with finite minds. Only God is infinite and all knowing.One of the reasons why Christianity cannot be mixed with Buddhism is because Buddhism believes in attaining enlightenment by ourselves. We believe Jesus Christ who is God Himself, saves us. Also with Buddhism, if you don’t get it right the first time, well there is always a next time. But then again, you don’t know if this is your second or whatever number chance it is. And still, you dont know what it is that you did wrong and needs correcting. With Christianity as I stated earlier, we are born once then comes the judgment.Hello Kevin.
Toby, these are difficult concepts, I understand. I can’t give you a scholarly explanation of the essence of this consciousness. It is simply a teaching of Buddhism. I could possibly point you to sites that could help if you would like.
Do you have to learn over and over again that killing is wrong? Do you have to learn over and over that lying is wrong? These are obvious and basic teachings of both Buddhism and Christianity. For determining those “in-between” actions, the fruit of actions determines what is wholesome and unwholesome. When you see the fruit of your actions leads to harmful results yo learn that those things are to be avoided.
I understand the Christian concepts you speak of here. Buddhism posits these laws simply exist without determining how. Buddhism does reject the idea of a “Creator God”. In Buddhist cosmology there is the concept of gods, demons, etc. However, this is a teaching derived from Hinduism which Buddha was brought up in.
Do you have to learn from your parents that falling off your bicycle is painful? No. Do you have to learn from your parents that kids will possibly bully you at school? No. So, your statement makes no sense to me.
You said it yourself - His ways are higher than our ways and thoughts higher than our thoughts. So, our concepts could very possibly be flawed given this fact.
Buddhism doesn’t understand God as a Creator. He is not considered a personal presence, but a “ground of being” - as the base of all life. This would be “knowing God in a different way”. In the words of Thich Nhat Hanh quoting Paul Tillich - God is not a peson, but not less than a person. These are hard concepts to deal with especially when we are dealing with them superficially here.
I don’t advocate mixing the teachings of Buddhism and Christianity. I don’t advocate a BuddhiChristianity or ChristianBuddhism. They are not the same and at their core cannot be the same. Not when we are speaking of their “systems” of thought and structure.
How can this statement be true unless its opposite is false? In making this kind of statement (as you have above) you have used the law of non-contradiction.
This law of contradiction could be used against even your thinking, friend. Remember the link I showed you? That person used this same law to refute the Trinity. Yet, you would say his claims are ridiculous.
The link you speak of was never posted. I would like to see it though.
Dennis,
The reality you assert we live in is not the reality that Buddhism asserts. Buddhism asserts that what we perceive to be reality is really an illusion - a dream and not the true reality. So, matters of contradiction are not feasible. It is similar to Lao Tsu’s statement of “the name that can be named is not the true name”.
But to say that there are wrong distinctions is to say that there are right ones, correct?
True, the goal then is to figure out who’s view of reality is the correct one by the use of reason and logic, which at its most basic form is the law of non-contradiction.