| Blogs > Deleted User 3420 |
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 28 2008 08:52 Ryot wrote: As far as I know Karma has no scientific backing, seems like nothing more than superstition. How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized? Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
It's probably already been said, but in a purely logical sense, if you do something 'bad' people will feel animosity toward you, which makes it more likely for bad things to happen to you (people won't be as conscious of your welfare as normal), and someone might even go out of their way to hurt you. That's just common sense, and it goes the same way if you do good things. If you want to talk about karma in games and sports... if you're disrespectful of your opponents, you only fuel their desire to hurt you. You'll be the target of body checks in Hockey, you'll be the target of everyone in Gin Rummy for bad cards. There's a hidden logic to karma, qi and feng shui that goes beyond foolish oogy boogiery. I don't think any Buddhists are trying to convince people the world is magical; they're just trying to share a wisdom that will help you best live your life, with or without calling yourself Buddhist. Even reincarnation has a logic to it... When you die, your body decomposes and helps fertilize soil for new plants to grow, which new animals can feed on, and be fed on... I admit I don't know an entirely large amount about Buddhism, but I've never seen them as the crazy mystical types, or illogical leapers of faith with abandonment of reality (such as certain popular Western religions are). | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 28 2008 08:56 CommanderFluffy wrote: My understanding of karma is that every action/deed has a consequence. Whether the consequence is good or bad depends on the nature of the original action. I dont think karma really exists, people just use it on the basis of confirmation bias. Yes, that is what the purely logical calculating part of me says. But then the subjective part steps in and says "but remember when this happened and then that happened?? Life is very strange if you take enough time to examine it. I have trouble believing some of the situations I get into are not part of a greater scheme. | ||
|
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
It might be tempting to look for explanations when things happen that are out of your control, like your favourite starcraft player lose, your car crashes or someone you love dies in an accident. But these are natural things that can happen to anyone, they don't happen because you are being a good or bad person. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 28 2008 09:00 jtan wrote: There's no reason to believe in karma. what is that supposed to mean? either it is real or it isn't. that's like saying there is no reason to believe the earth is round(or flat  ). Either it is or it isn't, the point is in knowing the truth so that you can use it.It might be tempting to look for explanations when things happen that are out of your control, like your favourite starcraft player lose, your car crashes or someone you love dies in an accident. But these are natural things that can happen to anyone, they don't happen because you are being a good or bad person. the sun is made out of water and im right because I say so | ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
I think meditation is a worthwhile discipline. Ekhart Tolle describes in "The Power of Now" how meditation can bring a state of supreme bliss and peace, free of the constraints of the past, the future, free of what we commonly associate with our identity, bathed in our true identity, that consists simply of our consciousness, our being. Sam Harris sees meditation as an instrument into one's spiritual world (if the word "spiritual" is too much for you, I guess ""inner" or "subjective" are equally good). Just like one must first build a telescope to study the stars in detail, so must one first invest a considerable amount of time and effort in building an "inner telescope" through mastering the practice of meditation. After reaching a high enough level of control of the surprisingly difficult task of observing and guiding your thoughts, one can start to explore and experience the world in a different way. One of his realizations is that there is no "I", that what we usually associate with our identity is merely an illusion, the boundaries we impose between us and the landscape in which we find ourselves are an illusion. As I sat and gazed upon the surrounding hills gently sloping to an inland sea, a feeling of peace came over me. It soon grew to a blissful stillness that silenced my thoughts. In an instant, the sense of being a separate self—an “I” or a “me”—vanished. Everything was as it had been—the cloudless sky, the pilgrims clutching their bottles of water—but I no longer felt like I was separate from the scene, peering out at the world from behind my eyes. Only the world remained. (full article here) I have tried meditation by the simple to state but difficult to follow exercise of observing my thoughts as they appear and simply stopping them as I observe them, returning to the initial state of waiting for a thought to occur spontaneously. I have reached the sought-after "thoughtless" state, although only for a few fleeting moments. I haven't even glimpsed the state of blissful peace and acceptance of the world, or the feeling of losing one's self that other have, although I am a beginner. I prefer to use meditation devoid of any metaphysical context, simply because my mind cannot accept assertions on any other grounds than evidence. Since subjective experience, like qualia, is hard to put under a microscope, I take everything I read on meditation with a grain of salt. It is however encouraging when people of completely different backgrounds describe their experience in such a similar fashion (please watch the 3 videos at the end of the post). Also, as long as they don't make truth claims about the world, but simply describe as best they can their experience, I find it worthwhile to take their advice and explore and see first-hand what works and what doesn't. Sorry for sort of going off-topic. As far as Buddhism goes, I understand the Dalai Lama has repeatedly said that "if science contradicts Buddhist beliefs, science wins!". How many other religious leaders have said anything remotely close to that? | ||
|
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
There's no evidence for karma. And do you even think it makes sense? | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 28 2008 09:10 jtan wrote: There's plenty of evidence the earth is round. There's no evidence for karma. And do you even think it makes sense? did people have evidence the earth was round 300 years ago? how do you not get my point | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
My interpretation is that the Buddhist doctrine asserts that eventually, everything normalizes. Good shit is good because it helps everyone. Bad shit is bad because it is hurtful. Consistently do good stuff, and the benefits will eventually reach you - verify with statistics and probability theory. Consistently do bad stuff, and the results will eventually bite your ass - also verify with statistics and probability theory. Now, the part about reincarnation and what you did in your previous life affecting you today -- surely the lives and decisions of previous persons affect today's lives and decisions, but whether or not there is some sort of "spirit" or "me-ness" that survives death and goes on in another life is moot for me -- I can't remember, and I don't care if I can't remember and there are no other implications. Yay for longest sentence in the thread. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
There's plenty of evidence the earth is round. There's no evidence for karma. And do you even think it makes sense? What evidence have you personally witnessed though? Maybe you've seen the Earth's curve over the Ocean, which only suggests the Earth could be round, but that's not much more than anyone saying "this guys an asshole, and because of that people weren't worried about his safety when they saw him in potential danger." Like... I don't know what you think karma is... It's not some hokey pokey witchcraft, it's just common sense. "What goes around, comes around." You can't argue that you don't increase the chances of people feeling animosity toward you if you're an asshole and never generous. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 28 2008 09:09 Doctorasul wrote: There are forms of Buddhism that are completely stripped of any irrational beliefs such as reincarnation or karma, making them effectively a spiritual practice or merely a philosophy with an emphasis on experiencing the world within us. I guess there's little reason to call it Buddhism by those practicing it, yet one must recognize the merit of the originators of these practices. I think it is unfair to call them irrational. Buddhism says that Buddhas are enlightened. And so if Buddha says he can remember past lives, and he can interpret karma, then there should be no reason to call him irrational. Though there would certainly be reason to doubt him. Anyways, thank you for good the post. watching some videos . | ||
|
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
To believe in karma, you'd have to assume there's some sort of supernatural scheme going on. Why would you make that assumption when you don't have to? | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 28 2008 09:24 jtan wrote: Oh come on To believe in karma, you'd have to assume there's some sort of supernatural scheme going on. no you don't. you're being closeminded. what kind of world do you think we live in? how much do you really know? we don't even know what causes consciousness. how can you say that. | ||
|
Ryot
Canada316 Posts
On July 28 2008 08:57 travis wrote: How can something be validated scientifically without first being hypothesized? Science still has alot to learn. It is very very silly to think we have a great understanding of our existence. Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it. Obviously saving someone's life will lead to positive benefits (or a reward) from that someone, a logical series of events. But helping an old woman cross the street isn't gonna randomly lead to a promotion at work. Probably not great examples, but you get the point. There's logical responses based off of actions, then there's coincidence. | ||
|
Elric
United Kingdom1327 Posts
On July 28 2008 09:31 Ryot wrote: Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it. Obviously saving someone's life will lead to positive benefits (or a reward) from that someone, a logical series of events. But helping an old woman cross the street isn't gonna randomly lead to a promotion at work. Probably not great examples, but you get the point. There's logical responses based off of actions, then there's coincidence. QFE. For added emphasis, I think some of you guys should look up the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti monster. Edit: :/ Doesn't seem like you guys did. Here's a less belittling version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
On July 28 2008 08:30 travis wrote: ok since when is the worth of a religion determined by it's popularity? I don't know what you are trying to mean by this. I mean literally gay. It's too soft. Real religions should have a holy book where you interpret and declare war over the different views on the books. Buddhism doesn't have anything like that, and a lot of people in my country is like 'yeah, I'm an atheist but if I wanted to belong to a religion it'd be buddhism cause it's so peaceful and kind etc etc'. You get the point. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, because obviously the buddhism way of living makes a lot more sense than most religions in the present. But it's very meek and a lot more of philosophy than actual religion (no god or scribings, no real requirements to join, enlightenment and the meditation to gain enlightenment). I didn't intend that the 'worth' of buddhism is lesser than with any other religion. I guess phrased that bad. What I meant in that last paragraph was that I was slightly confused as to why you started talking about buddhism then proceeded to write down general stuff which a lot of asian religions follow. I'm not questioning your knowledge of buddhism, I'm just saying that if there are any fellow teamliquidans who doesn't know anything about buddhism, they won't understand the religion very well from reading your opening post. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 28 2008 09:31 Ryot wrote: Hypothesize all you want, but if there's no scientific data to back it (like some sort of controlled experiment for example) then I can't blindly believe in it. science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point. | ||
|
Ryot
Canada316 Posts
On July 28 2008 09:36 travis wrote: science is not the only method to find truth. but I agree with your point. Just out of curiosity, what are the other methods? Empirical evidence falls under science doesn't it? | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 28 2008 09:34 Shauni wrote: What I meant in that last paragraph was that I was slightly confused as to why you started talking about buddhism then proceeded to write down general stuff which a lot of asian religions follow. I'm not questioning your knowledge of buddhism, I'm just saying that if there are any fellow teamliquidans who doesn't know anything about buddhism, they won't understand the religion very well from reading your opening post. Karma and reincarnation are part of buddhism. I don't understand you. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 28 2008 09:38 Ryot wrote: Just out of curiosity, what are the other methods? Empirical evidence falls under science doesn't it? Introspection. Figuring out what makes sense with your own mind. Philosophy, meditation, whatever you want to call it. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
RSL Revival
Classic vs Trap
herO vs SHIN
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
