Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:45 am
lol Samba
A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
https://www.dharmawheel.net:443/
Assuming that they are also no less, of course not.PadmaVonSamba wrote:Yeah, probably!dude wrote: That's pushing it.
...but is the hungry ghost realm any more real than the human realm?
...is Manjusri any more real than you or I?
.
.
.
Excellent, Sherab! We've got some pretty sharp analytical minds here, on both sides of the debate. So if you provide an accurate account of the these events, like you we can dissect them and see if indeed science and logic come up short, and perhaps we'll all get lucky and finally get a first-person account which is reasonably reliable. I would just ask that all parties treat this with respect and intellectual honesty, presenting and discussing just the facts, and reasonable hypotheses pro and con. Sherab just imagine that you are writing up an eyewitness report for a court case starting with time, date, location, names of those involved, and all the related circumstances including those that led up to the events in question, as well as their result and their aftermath. Of course, collaborating testimony by other eyewitnesses would not only be appreciated, but go a long way toward providing a solid case. If you are willing to do so, and would like help preparing your account i would be happy to provide impartial support to ensure that your account is complete before subjecting it to public scrutiny, in which case just PM me. Such an approach would likely avoid a lot of sidetracks.Sherab wrote:But there are things that science has yet to be able to explain such as the various siddhis of accomplished meditators. I personally have experienced the siddhis of my master and I have to accept the fact that I could not explain them in any scientific way.
Personally...causing hail..crap.dude wrote:You think preventing or causing hail, healing mantras, etc are bullshit too?
Now that's a much more important question, isn't it?
They seem pretty convinced their methods do lead to good results. I can't be sure that is the litmus test for truth.Regarding Scientology, if their methods did lead to good results that would be great. It's for the individual to judge that for themselves - the proof of the pudding is always in the eating.
Citing "experience" can be an easy way to get around the tough questions."And in the eternal debate on answers what is true.... Is what's true for you"
That would be nice.pensum wrote: So if you provide an accurate account of the these events, like you we can dissect them and see if indeed science and logic come up short, and perhaps we'll all get lucky and finally get a first-person account which is reasonably reliable. .
Yes.dzogchungpa wrote:You seem to accept rebirth. Is that based on universally accessible empirical knowledge?Malcolm wrote:Meru is not presented as a visionary model in any Buddhist text It is presented by Vasubandhu as empirical fact. Since that cosmology does not conform to what is universally accessible empirical knowledge, it is relic of another time and another culture that no longer can be entertained as true.
And that is the only topic where Buddhism needs to develop some proper arguments. Many of Shantarakshita's arguments against the materialists could be today refuted by the current understanding of neurology and biochemistry. For instance, he writes in relation to the body being the material cause of consciousness:Malcolm wrote:But I do have a mind, the last I checked (some may disagree of course), and as a matter of inference, is seemed unlikely to me (when I examined the question) that ultimately my stream of consciousness could have emerged from my brain alone (which is a necessary condition for sense cognitions, but in my opinion cannot account for knowing).
Should be..."my stream of consciousness could not have emerged..."Malcolm wrote:Yes.dzogchungpa wrote:You seem to accept rebirth. Is that based on universally accessible empirical knowledge?Malcolm wrote:Meru is not presented as a visionary model in any Buddhist text It is presented by Vasubandhu as empirical fact. Since that cosmology does not conform to what is universally accessible empirical knowledge, it is relic of another time and another culture that no longer can be entertained as true.
No. It's an inferential conclusion about a phenomena of which I have no direct knowledge (I have no recollection of past lives, and couldn't prove it to you even if I did). But I do have a mind, the last I checked (some may disagree of course), and as a matter of inference, is seemed unlikely to me (when I examined the question) that ultimately my stream of consciousness could have emerged from my brain alone (which is a necessary condition for sense cognitions, but in my opinion cannot account for knowing).
M
Agreed, can you suggest some?The legendary battles between buddhist and non-buddhist siddhas always come down to "The fastest siddha in the East". And of course, we only record our victories, not our defeats. For a record of our defeats, we must examine Hindu sources.
Take a look at the "The Hardship and Downfall of Buddhism in India" showing that Indian Buddhism was destroyed by Hindus. This book convincingly puts to rest the idea that Buddhism was not destroyed by Hindus but rather by Muslims. It shows, convincingly in my mind, that the long standing and deeply entrenched Brahmanical hostility to Buddhism was in large part responsible for the downfall of Buddhism in India, as recorded in myths and accounts in Hindu texts and archaeology.JKhedrup wrote:Agreed, can you suggest some?The legendary battles between buddhist and non-buddhist siddhas always come down to "The fastest siddha in the East". And of course, we only record our victories, not our defeats. For a record of our defeats, we must examine Hindu sources.
I agree. It is a remarkable work, although some Indian scholars I know personally disagree with his premises and reject his ideas. However, he backs up his claims with ample evidence in my mind.Malcolm wrote: Take a look at the "The Hardship and Downfall of Buddhism in India" showing that Indian Buddhism was destroyed by Hindus. This book convincingly puts to rest the idea that Buddhism was not destroyed by Hindus but rather by Muslims. It shows, convincingly in my mind, that the long standing and deeply entrenched Brahmanical hostility to Buddhism was in large part responsible for the downfall of Buddhism in India, as recorded in myths and accounts in Hindu texts and archaeology.
Giovanni Veraridi, Hardships and Downfall of Buddhism in India (New Delhi, India: Manohar, 2011), 349-350.
- Violence was no longer a taboo for the Buddhists: it was part of their strategy, together with sexual unruliness and a conscious resorting to social revolt. It is a mistake to consider the incitements to revolt contained in the texts and the manifestations of violence in both texts and iconographies as purely symbolic. They are literal and metaphorical, not symbolic. As metaphors, through the analogical process, texts and iconographies transfer the violence committed by the Buddhists on the tīrthika-s to those carried out on the Brahmanical gods by the new Buddhist deities. That a symbolic interpretation started developing at an early stage is not particularly significant, because it was largely the work of trans-Himalayan Buddhists who had to adapt the received tradition to a context where there were no tīrthika-s. The Vajrayāna was considered part of the true teaching of the Buddha, and neither texts nor images could be changed: they could only be interpreted. These interpretations have their own legitimacy, and so deep and influential as to have generated an entire symbolic universe, extending from Tibet to Japan, but we must first distinguish between Indian Buddhism and the violent world where it developed and the forms it took when it was received outside India.
I understand what you say, and I agree with it. However I think you are using a more restrictive sense of "siddha/siddhi" here than what I, and probably others posting on this thread, have in mind.Malcolm wrote:One thing that people seem to be unaware of, because perhaps they are not very clear about the history of Buddhist ideas, is that the so called "siddha" movement largely rose in response to increasing hostility towards Buddhists...
In the admonition to…Of what possible use are siddhis in taming the mind?
dzogchungpa wrote:I understand what you say, and I agree with it. However I think you are using a more restrictive sense of "siddha/siddhi" here than what I, and probably others posting on this thread, have in mind.Malcolm wrote:One thing that people seem to be unaware of, because perhaps they are not very clear about the history of Buddhist ideas, is that the so called "siddha" movement largely rose in response to increasing hostility towards Buddhists...
Power="the ability to do". A surgeon has the ability, or power, to heal. Bodhisattvas and Buddhas have the power to benefit others, etc.Power, all power, is always laced with the threat of violence, the ability to transgress boundaries, whether physical, social, or moral.