"Time to create a splinter group, devoted to Stoicism, conscience and clean air food and water....... an ark for the future. " ................. My vote is for the Epicurians! Thanks for that info, Z. It's interesting what english words were once philsophies, like the Cynics.
If you put it that way, s'pose he was religious. Ouch. Nice, Gendyke. Especially the "wrapanoose" bit. But I doubt you have what it takes. Just another Generik twit.
>> My vote is for the Epicurians! Good call, but I think pleasure only in moderation.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wringworm: HA! Gendyke.....sweet. Gendandruff, sweeter. Oh never, never doubt what nobody is sure about. I can take a rainbow... dip in a sigh.... stuff it in a bullet and then shoot you in the eye..... Seen it? Kudos.
Wringworm! Haha! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thankyouverymuch, Genderless. A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest man... ?
IMHO this a mistake on the scale of the cosmological constant. Buddhism (and Taoism) is in total and profound disagreement with science on the nature of the universe, of the cosmos and of ourselves. The heady days when scientists thought Buddhism was consistent with science are about gone. The enthusiasm was based on a misunderstanding. Even Suzuki backed off. Buddhism is consistent with science only in the sense that it is not falsifiable by science. However it can't be tested by science so clearly it is scientifically meaningless as a metaphysic. Also the exploits of modern science are profoundly anti-Buddhist. Ozymandias - Are you sure about this distinction you make between Buddhism and Taoism? As far as I can see they make the same assertions about reality. Chuang-Tzu, Lao-Tzu and the Buddha seem to say precisely the same thing as far as I've read them, details aside.
"A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest -- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security." -Einstein I've read that dharma practioners(bhuddist) have this belief also (im taking a course in eastern philosophy). To use an anology, That the universe is like the ocean and each one of us is just a wave that appears and then will dissapear into the ocean once again. The interconnectedness of life. Makes sense.
I think that many Eastern religions / philosophies support this, not just Buddhists. P.S., What's a "bhuddist"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just being fussy but Taoism, Buddhism etc aren't founded on beliefs. They are founded on knowledge. Whether it is true knowledge is another question, but it is not 'belief' in the religious sense. If you're studying Eastern philosophy this is an crucial point. If one treats them as belief systems then one misses what they actually are.
Yes, they are not founded on beliefs, but they are associated with a few; karma, reincarnation, the accumulation of merit, nirvana. Quite a Gendundrum, I'd say.
These are not beliefs. They may be self-delusions but they are not 'believed' in the sense of 'having faith in'.
I am a Chinese. I know some ideas of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. Generally speaking, most Chinese scholars are in the view that the three schools of thought are devoted to the same purpose and actually they in essence agree with one another,especially since China's Song Dynasty.
Guy, you wrong, according to Buddhism, there is ultimately no such things as natural, spiritual or cosmic. All the things are selfless and based on dependent rising. So languages are also unable to describe Selflessness. In this sense, Tao may be close to Selflessness in meaning. Because of selflessness, there is possibility of dependent orgination, growth, aging and death or disappearance. All the natural or spiritual or social or supernatural things, whatever name it may be, human, pig, grass, water, star, god, ghost,.... are conditional rising or existance. As we Chinese know, Taoism and Confucianism have a history longer than that of Buddhism in China. These three kinds of thoughts all deal with the nature, society or human life and thought, but Buddhism is deeper. In Chinese Song Dynasty, the three thoughts integrated to a certain extent, in particular, Confucianism with Buddhism.
I agree with what you have said. I am a Chinese interested in Chinese thoughts, including Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Book of Change, etc. If you like, we can be friends.
Yo Ozy, you like many people does not have a very knowledgable picture of Buddhism (and maybe not Taoism, but I have never studied that, so I cannot say anything affirmative about it). “ "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both natural and spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism." ” No...no. Taoism much more aptly fits that description. Here, lemme break it down. Ok, lemme try to break it down. "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion." Taoist. How so? This sounds like it be part of any religion--Buddhist cosmology breaks things down into planets revolving around things and so forth... "It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology." Not Buddhism. That religion has developed specific gods, all facets of Brahman. It has dogmas, it has theology, it is as much locked into being a "Religion" as Christianity. That is a very bad statement! Some Buddhist do not believe in gods, but that is not the point. Brahman was a concept Buddha argued against--he said that was a delusion. That is crucial, since Buddha tried to break the caste system which is based of the idea of Brahman. The idea of "all facets of Brahman" is like talking about the ultimate self, and Buddhism does not affirm that at all, it only affirms an empirical self (something in continual change and without lasting properties, ie, non-imortal self, but a sequence of selfs which we reference--this clinging to the idea of an immortal self is one of the root cause of suffering in Buddhism). There is no, um, dogma--a Buddhist, I believe, is supposed to question everything and find knowledge by himself. The Buddha is not a deity either, but is considered a teacher. And there is really no God (or "true" Brahman or "Ultimate Self" (this is an impersonal self referred to in the Hindu Upanishads)) in Buddhism. "Covering both natural and spiritual," Taoism, again. Hmmm...this is getting kind of old...cannot anyone just say, "Christianity, again" or "Buddhism, Again"? Anyways, Buddhism covers the natural and spiritual, too. It takes an empirical study of the nature of what we see outside and then forms it into a cohesive and systematic study of how we then perceive it. The spirituality is in the interpretation, and natural in the senses. "it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things," Taoism. Not Buddhism -- Buddhism is based on transcending all things, rather than experiencing them all. Hmm...this is not exactly what it means--one is supposed to find an unity among all things. Transcending in Buddhism refers to transcending all selfish attachments", not really experience. "natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity." Natural, spiritual, united with Tao. Yup, here's Taoism. Unity is very important to Buddhism--the idea that we are seperate individuals, we have a seperatness with anything from a rock to an individual is not proper accodring to Buddhism. It's interesting you say this, when Buddhism takes a very fuzzy outlook at everything... "Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism." Whoa. Slow down, Einstein. Perhaps you might want to pick up some Vedas before saying that load of tripe again... You should slow down and do some reading yourself man. The Vedas are part of Hinduism and have no meaning whatsoever to Buddhism!!!! Actually, Buddha argued against some of the Vedas (hint, hint) including some references to animal sacrifice and the caste system! I can understand that his description could be interpreted as many different things, with slight word twists and a careful eye, and I'm sure that an avid Buddhist (which I'm not) could aptly match the religion of Buddhism to fit Einstein's description ... but it's still Taoism that seems to be the perfect match, to me. I agree with this for the most part (excpet the last part). I do not think any religion matches perfectly, but that's my opinion. -Dainliamne
Buddhism by the very meaning of the word is Knowledge (Enlightenment, understanding true nature of reality) which is same thing as Science. Just as people practice pseudoscience, so can people who get confused about what Buddhism really is. It is a living process of understanding as we aquire more knowledge and not stuck on some books or past erroneous information. Vedas used to portray the same thought process, but powerful Brahmins hijacked the thoughts until Gautama came along.
I just want to add some more facts about Buddhism here. Because Christians people keep thinking about Buddhism or another religions in a wrong way, because they don't know the others, just knowing it from mounth-to-mounth. Buddhism is truely a study of nature. The ideal of Buddhism is to know what is the nature and how to get out of this ethernal loop. The nature of people's mine when they do one thing, they're thinking about the other things. ie. when they're brushing their teeth, they just thinking about how to make money tomorrow, I hate that guy, I like that guy, etc.. Science is also a study of nature too, no doubt. Sometime Buddha explained something which was totally science but nobody realized(I don't want to discribe it because my English is not good) And Especially those sciencetists are Christians, so they don't know that it what they've found is on the Buddhism's bible, ie. the way every life are borned. Buddhism, to understand it you have to do it, not just only reading the Buddhism's bible and start contridicted it, Meditation all those kind of stuff that is most likely nobody would like to do it, but if you start doing it, you will know what the nature of human is and it is the same as the Budda says.
