|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| flotsam wrote: |
Is this true?
|
Yes.
| flotsam wrote: |
Sorry, Sir. You are redefining god. Thus making it easy to describe Buddhists as non-atheists. However, at its essence, Buddhism does not distinguish between universe and self and therefore there can be no distinct entity of god. What is, is sacred, holy or divine if you need to describe it in such a way, but what is most important to a Buddhist is to see it as what is, with no clouding of what it..er..is.
Shame on you.
P.S. Einstein's understanding of Buddhism was shaky at best, self-serving and self-consoling at worst. |
Red:
He was a bit busy unlocking the secrets of the universe in a way that hadn't been done since Newton, so cut him a little slack if he didn't study up on the subtle nuances of "The drum goes boom," dude.
And why was it "self-serving"? If he had thrown his support behind, say, Christianity, he would have had a ton of money to fund his research tossed his way. Expressing solidarity with a bunch of shaven-headed, chanting vegans is not the way to get rich.
Green:
To redefine "God," "God" would have had to have been clearly defined before, which He/She/It had not. I don't think I'm changing the definition of "God" so much as choosing one of the many definitions of "God" that are already out there -perhaps not in dictionaries, but in people's minds.
Orange:
I believe that many Buddhists are not atheists. I, for one, am not, and neither is a Buddhist Korean friend of mine who ended a story about some fortunate events in her life with, "Thank God."
According to you, if we followed the scripture of Buddhism strictly, we'd have to be atheists.
(from here)
| Delirium's Brother wrote: |
| Just as Wittgenstein once noted that the true meaning of a word isn't found in the dictionary, but in it its use in society (PI �43); I'd proffer that the collective meaning of a religion isn't found in its scriptures, but in its application in the world. |
And here's another clever guy:
| Siddhartha Gautama wrote: |
Do not accept anything I say as true simply because I have said it.
Instead, test it as you would gold to see if it is genuine or not.
If, after examining my teachings, you find that they are true, put them into practice.
But do not do so simply out of respect for me. |
Neither I nor any other Buddhist has to accept everything about Buddhism. Skepticism is not only tolerated but encouraged.
And the above quote is the # 1 reason why (at least according to the Internet) Buddhism is attracting many new followers, especially amongst scientists.
Cyan:
Yes, I'm aware of that, and understand it, but don't accept it completely. Yes, the boundaries between objects are, to a certain extent, artificial. After I eat a sandwich, it starts to become part of me, and when I take a dump, I lose part of me. Where do "I" begin and "I" end? It's been estimated that about every seven years or so, every atom in your body has been completely turned over. However, this consciousness that is "me" has remained constant. I'm not prepared to think of the whole universe and one, big, undifferentiated, amorphous blob. And I have the Buddha-given right to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't agree that Buddhists are atheists.
Example:
Person A: Hello, I believe I'm a Buddhist. I would like to learn how to relieve suffering. I also believe in the existence of gods. Can I call myself a Buddhist?
Buddhist: Yes of course you can.
Person B: Hello, I believe I'm an Atheist. I also believe in the existence of gods. Can I call myself an atheist?
Atheist: Er...do you know what the word atheist means?
Not to mention all this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology
| Quote: |
| Jambudvīpa or Jambudīpa is located in the south and is the dwelling of ordinary human beings. It is said to be shaped "like a cart", or rather a blunt-nosed triangle with the point facing south. (This description probably echoes the shape of the coastline of southern India.) It is 10,000 yojanas in extent (Vibhajyavāda tradition) or has a perimeter of 6,000 yojanas (Sarvāstivāda tradition) to which can be added the southern coast of only 3 1⁄2 yojanas' length. The continent takes its name from a giant Jambu tree (Syzygium cumini), 100 yojanas tall, which grows in the middle of the continent. Every continent has one of these giant trees. All Buddhas appear in Jambudvīpa. The people here are five to six feet tall and their length of life varies between 80,000 and 10 years. |
| Quote: |
Hot Narakas
Sa�jīva � the "reviving" Naraka. Life in this Naraka is 162*1010 years long.
Kālasūtra � the "black thread" Naraka. Life in this Naraka is 1296*1010 years long.
Saṃghāta � the "crushing" Naraka. Life in this Naraka is 10,368*1010 years long.
Raurava � the "screaming" Naraka. Life in this Naraka is 82,944*1010 years long.
Mahāraurava � the "great screaming" Naraka. Life in this Naraka is 663,552*1010 years long.
Tapana � the "heating" Naraka. Life in this Naraka is 5,308,416*1010 years long.
Pratāpana � the "great heating" Naraka. Life in this Naraka is 42,467,328*1010 years long.
Avīci � the "uninterrupted" Naraka. Life in this Naraka is 339,738,624*1010 years long. |
| Quote: |
The foundations of the earth
All of the structures of the earth, Sumeru and the rest, extend downward to a depth of 80,000 yojanas below sea level � the same as the height of Sumeru above sea level. Below this is a layer of "golden earth", a substance compact and firm enough to support the weight of Sumeru. It is 320,000 yojanas in depth and so extends to 400,000 yojanas below sea level. The layer of golden earth in turn rests upon a layer of water, which is 8,000,000 yojanas in depth, going down to 8,400,000 yojanas below sea level. Below the layer of water is a "circle of wind", which is 16,000,000 yojanas in depth and also much broader in extent, supporting 1,000 different worlds upon it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A lot of athiests are agnostics and just don't know that word exists (you don't really hear it that often) or don't understand the word. Sometimes they are just against one particular religion (or denomination) and call themselves athiests, which they aren't. Both the words athiest and agnostic are still somewhat foreign to some people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay.
1. In reference to Einstein, I meant it was self-serving in the sense that the tenets of most interpretations of most monotheistic faiths don't jive with his theories. Buddhism does/can. But, yeah, he did some good work. I'll let him off the hook, for now.
2. Now, the italicized sections above are for you and Mith with your relativist bunk. Much like the discussion in the other thread, I think this is a false dichotomy between all-encompassing definitions of Buddhism and appropriate definitions of Buddhism. This one's a real straw man. But in the end, in practical discourse, once you are generous enough in your definition to say an apple is orange, you peel its skin before you eat it and the economies of Florida and California are fueled by them, it's no longer an apple--I don't care what "society" says it is. Wittgenstein was a schmuck who inspired a spawning of literary criticists(sic with a  ) that still infest the world today. (I doubt very much that he experienced many of the fruits of his theories personally and tested them for skillfulness, blamelessness, and the potential to bring happiness and be praiseworthy...). Parasites all. Yes, it's all nice and good to say "people can believe what they want to believe" and it's still Buddhism, and you can then refer to the Kalama Sutta and say, we have to have empirical knowledge of something before we know it's true. But:
A. That doesn't mean everyone's interpretation of existence is equally valid because they think it is.
B. Thinking like this dilutes the teaching and practice of Buddhism by allowing too much emphasis on free-wheeling interpretation. This is why many practioners will recommend one to find a good teacher. Not that that always works, but I would rather more people took that route than formed more sects of Madonna-worshipping Greenwich Village Kabbalah Sufi-Buddhists.
C. The issue of what one thinks valid must live parallel to another concept:
| Quote: |
Truth
Buddha always emphasized the rational pursuit of truth. "He instructed his disciples to critically judge his words before accepting them. He always advocated reason over blind faith.
"Buddha was speaking about reality," says Dalai Lama.3 "Reality may be one, in its deepest essence, but Buddha also stated that all propositions about reality are only contingent. Reality is devoid of any intrinsic identity that can be captured by any one single proposition � that is what Buddha meant by "voidness." Therefore, Buddhism strongly discourages blind faith and fanaticism."
"Of course, there are different truths on different levels. Things are true relative to other things; "long" and "short" relate to each other, "high" and "low," and so on. But is there any absolute truth? Something self-sufficient, independently true in itself? I don't think so."
"In Buddhism we have the concept of "interpretable truths," teachings that are reasonable and logical for certain people in certain situations. Buddha himself taught different teachings to different people under different circumstances. For some people, there are beliefs based on a Creator. For others, no Creator. The only "definitive truth" for Buddhism is the absolute negation of any one truth as the Definitive Truth.'3 |
In a clever, compassionate way, both Shakyamuni and The Dalai Lama(quoted above) are disingenous, or playful and leading in their "openness" to the idea of a creator or god. Taken at face value, the passage above says: anything goes! But the Dalai Lama has many times stated that if some people feel the need to believe in a creator, that's fine--but he doesn't. Doubt the Buddha did--but that question wasn't even regarded as worthy of enough attention to be included among the 14 unanswerable questions--it was a non-issue. And, in the end, you show me a feasible interpretation of a comprehensive deity or manifest descripitive of the universe or existence that jives with the sentence in bold, and I'll show you a false idol. Maybe Billy Idol.
Some people need idols. Some people need to think of an afterlife or a transmigration of their soul(usually as intact as can possibly be imagined--I'm good, I really am!) but they are missing the subtext: there are no absolute truths so those gods or creators or life forces are as irrelevant or relevant or un-relevant as the cushion you sit on during practice. And as for transmigration...people continue to put much more faith in the chances of a sea turtle rising its head out of the ocean at just the right moment to catch that gold hoop when the real message behind that metaphor is: ain't going to happen, something more wonderful will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kato
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh god, blah blah blah...you are all being victims of subjectivity...get over it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kato wrote: |
| Oh god, blah blah blah...you are all being victims of subjectivity...get over it... |
Yes, yes...touche. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flotsam wrote: |
| Doubt the Buddha did--but that question wasn't even regarded as worthy of enough attention to be included among the 14 unanswerable questions--it was a non-issue. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"I know a mixed-faith family.
One parent is a Jehovah's Witness, and the other is agnostic.
So their children knock on doors, but they don't know why."
- Jay Leno
| flotsam wrote: |
| Quote: |
Truth
Buddha always emphasized the rational pursuit of truth. "He instructed his disciples to critically judge his words before accepting them. He always advocated reason over blind faith.
"Buddha was speaking about reality," says Dalai Lama.3 "Reality may be one, in its deepest essence, but Buddha also stated that all propositions about reality are only contingent. Reality is devoid of any intrinsic identity that can be captured by any one single proposition � that is what Buddha meant by "voidness." Therefore, Buddhism strongly discourages blind faith and fanaticism."
"Of course, there are different truths on different levels. Things are true relative to other things; "long" and "short" relate to each other, "high" and "low," and so on. But is there any absolute truth? Something self-sufficient, independently true in itself? I don't think so."
"In Buddhism we have the concept of "interpretable truths," teachings that are reasonable and logical for certain people in certain situations. Buddha himself taught different teachings to different people under different circumstances. For some people, there are beliefs based on a Creator. For others, no Creator. The only "definitive truth" for Buddhism is the absolute negation of any one truth as the Definitive Truth.'3 |
In a clever, compassionate way, both Shakyamuni and The Dalai Lama(quoted above) are disingenous, or playful and leading in their "openness" to the idea of a creator or god. Taken at face value, the passage above says: anything goes! But the Dalai Lama has many times stated that if some people feel the need to believe in a creator, that's fine--but he doesn't. Doubt the Buddha did--but that question wasn't even regarded as worthy of enough attention to be included among the 14 unanswerable questions--it was a non-issue. And, in the end, you show me a feasible interpretation of a comprehensive deity or manifest descripitive of the universe or existence that jives with the sentence in bold, and I'll show you a false idol. Maybe Billy Idol.
Some people need idols. Some people need to think of an afterlife or a transmigration of their soul(usually as intact as can possibly be imagined--I'm good, I really am!) but they are missing the subtext: there are no absolute truths so those gods or creators or life forces are as irrelevant or relevant or un-relevant as the cushion you sit on during practice. And as for transmigration...people continue to put much more faith in the chances of a sea turtle rising its head out of the ocean at just the right moment to catch that gold hoop when the real message behind that metaphor is: ain't going to happen, something more wonderful will. |
Red:
Sounds more like agnosticism than atheism to me. How can we know for sure that there is no God if The Big B didn't even address the issue?
The Dalai Lama says that he doesn't believe in God, but if you do, that's fine. That sounds like atheism is not a central, essential part of Buddhism.
And I should have read your linked article more carefully.
American Buddhism on the rise
| Quote: |
One doesn't have to subscribe to a catechism or creed, or be a vegetarian. Nor do people have to give up their religion. That's why some Americans speak of being Jewish Buddhists, for instance.
The Dalai Lama, in fact, often encourages people to stay with the faith of their cultural upbringing, to avoid the confusion that can sometimes result from a mixing of Eastern and Western perspectives. |
Jewish Buddhists, huh? Something tells me that they're probably not atheists.
And the Dalai Lama encourages western converts to not totally abandon the faith values that they grew up with. Like what, I wonder?
And I'd like to redirect you to Delirium's Brother's quote in my previous post.
If most people decided, for whatever reason, to start calling that yellow fruit with a peel and a sour citric taste an "apple," then for all intents and purposes, it would then be an apple. You can stand defiantly in front of the tidal wave and shake your fist indignantly, but you would be swept away. People will pick and choose. You can call it "shopping cart faith," but people have lives to live, and you do it too.
| The Fifth of the Five Precepts wrote: |
| I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicants which lead to heedlessness (such as alcohol*). |
* (Added by yours truly)
Hmmm ...
There are at least some self-described Buddhists who are not atheists (me, my friend, my sister, and undoubtedly others). Every rule has exceptions, but if there are too many exceptions, the rule cannot hold.
Green:
There is no absolute "correct" and "incorrect." I am merely correct relative to Flotsam.
By the way, I noticed that you recently had the pleasure of dining on this ...
Charlie Brown karma.
P.S. Cool avatar.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I still yell back at you "po-tay-toe/po-tah-toe, semantics, phhhhhhbt!!".
Agnostics are atheists who have visited Sweden for a new look.
But, OK, I guess, in the end, different people are allowed to think different things. I guess.
But I don't know that fifth precept business was all about...everyone knows those are optional guidelines anyway...and that's different.
P.S. You're a smarmy bastard Mith. You'll get yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flotsam wrote: |
I still yell back at you "po-tay-toe/po-tah-toe, semantics, phhhhhhbt!!".
Agnostics are atheists who have visited Sweden for a new look.
But, OK, I guess, in the end, different people are allowed to think different things. I guess.
But I don't know that fifth precept business was all about...everyone knows those are optional guidelines anyway...and that's different.
P.S. You're a smarmy bastard Mith. You'll get yours. |
I'm agnostic, not athiest. Which means somewhere, deep, deep down there is a tiny, infinitely small portion that has allowed myself to accept Rteachers purple God could be real |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flotsam wrote: |
| P.S. You're a smarmy bastard Mith. You'll get yours. |
No not smarmy bastard
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding the notion that an atheist could become president ...
Since 1937, the Gallup Organization has polled Americans with a question like:
"If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a ' _____ ' would you vote for that person?"
Here are the results
Baptist
1959 - 94%
1999 - 94%
Black
1937 - 37%
1999 - 95%
Catholic
1937 - 60%
1999 - 94%
Homosexual
1978 - 26%
1999 - 59%
Jewish
1937 - 46%
1999 - 92%
Mormon
1999 - 99% (only poll result available)
Woman
1937 - 33%
1999 - 92%
Atheist
1959 - 22%
1999 - 49%
(from The Gallup Organization, 1999-MAR-29, at: http://www.gallup.com/ or here )
So, as you can see from these results, in terms of having a chance at the presidency, atheists are the most discriminated-against group.
Basically, it's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
Atheist
1959 - 22%
1999 - 49% |
That is quite amazing - and disturbing.
I think Helen Clarke is atheist, but can't be certain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
