St. Robert

Yes, Adam Who. There are numerous similarities between Christianity and Buddhism, but they are obviously not the same. Our opinions and prejudices aside, the differences really should be explored.

It is true. I do sacrifice my own desires, but I do it for someone else. Not for myself. I do it so that I can receive Jesus' desires for me and my life.

Ravi Zacharias published a book last year entitled 'The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha'. It's a fictional story of Jesus and Buddha taking a boat ride together on The River of Kings. There are two other characters: the boat driver and a young woman dying of AIDS. It is a fascinating book that seeks to demonstrate the real differences between both of their teachings. I highly recommend it.

victorialis

With respect -- if you believe this, why do you inquire?

It is a reliable and safe position, this bottom line.

boneyard bill

Adam Who writes:

You completely miss my point on this issue. I have not said anything about emotions or feelings. What, anywhere in my presentation, suggested that the speed of light might in any way be dependent on feelings or emotions?

Please note what I said:

So I specifically denied that I meant self-knowledge to involve a specific psychological condition.

Let me elaborate. In the Middle Ages it was believed that the reason we could observe another object was because something went out from our eyes to apprehend that object.

In the modern scientific view, nothing like that happens. Our modern view is that the individual is a passive receptor of inputs from the outside world. That understanding works passably well in explaining our world to us. It has the distinct advantage of allowing us to measure all these passive inputs and subject them to all kinds of quantification.

But this does not make it the last word on the subject. I could be that we will find that taking a different view of our relationship to the world will enable us to solve problems that are currently intractable. The role of the observer is crucial in Einstein's relativity theory and it is also crucial in quantum mechanics so it is not outrageous to think that a new understanding of the observer's role my play a part in reconciling these two contradictory theories, for example.

But nothing that I am saying has anything to do with the psychological state of the observer at the time of observation except to assume that the observer is awake and sober.

AdamWho

St Robert
You assume incorrectly that the Buddhist is sacrificing desire for selfish reasons; that is wrong regardless of the books that you have read. The truth of the matter is: when anybody starts a spiritual path, Christian, Buddhist whatever, they generally start out with a limited understanding and often with the wrong motivations that is why a seeker needs a "path" to help them through.
Sacrificing desire to Jesus is a nice psychological pacifier, but the serious Christian cannot rely on God to do the "heavy lifting"; they have to do it. The Buddhist just skips the first part (the cosmic daddy complex).

victorialis:
Because it is "therapy" for me to discuss these issues, if I where to talk like this to the Buddhists in my life, there would be trouble. It is the same for many people on this web site, out motivations are not purely intellectual.

boneyard bill:
I think that you do not understand the role of observer in QM, relativity and physics in general. The observer IS NOT A CONSCIENCE. The observer is a field (whether matter of energy), rocks hitting each other "observe", photons hitting atoms “observe”. When Bohr realized how the word "observe" was misunderstood, he regretted ever using it. Just like the YEC, the Quantum Conscience cult picks and chooses the quotes they like long after those ideas are refuted.

Your theory is at best speculation; I hope it at least entertains you. Future suggestion: people who are science savvy will think you are a crank if you reference Einstein too much. He is more of a public icon than a physics one.

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]</p>

victorialis

This is a good reason. My curiosity stems from my observation that most posters on this site are generally not willing to go beyond certain strict logical limits. While that's a safe norm, it will keep the therapeutic value of the discussion at a very low level.

I am interested in your use of the word "conscience." It implies the presence of a sense of right and wrong -- a moralizing faculty.

I think what boneyardbill is talking about is not conscience, but only consciousness with no moralizing component.

Your point about the present popular interactivity between science and postmodernisms is well taken; I think this sort of surface activity gratifies postmodernists by giving them the shallowest kind of prestige by association... rather at the expense of science.

Serious scientists are not troubled by it, though, nor does it limit the legitimate scope of a serious scientist's activity -- although it creates a climate in which certain kinds of hypotheses become difficult to present, because they will be immediately and grossly misinterpreted.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: victorialis ]</p>

AdamWho

victorialis:
Popper pointed out that the first step of scientific investigation was creativity, so there is a place for speculation, but then comes the time for pruning the ideas using the scientific method.
I am interested in using this method to try and understand Buddhism and its adoption by atheists, one question is:
Why do some atheists, who reject Abrahamic religions out of its irrationalism, repeat the same mistakes by infusing irrationalism into eastern religions?

So far in this thread I have seen people engage in Buddhist apologetics, quote scripture, change the subject (I'm guilty also), all the things I would expect from Christians tyring to defend their faith. Is it the need to gratify emotion, is it clinging, is it desire? I think that Buddhism is a “grown-ups” religion and grown-ups need to criticize, examine and prune.

victorialis

How are we to criticize, examine and prune on this topic without Buddhist references -- or comparisons to other systems?

Now, there would be irrationalism.

Ruy Lopez

Hello everyone on this thread. I have just finished reading your 8-page discussion and I'm glad I did. Thank you for the education.

If I understood correctly, most of the thread presents what BB, Victorialis and a few others understand as the essence of Buddhism. I had initial difficulty following because of the "technical language" but soon recognized the concepts as familiar, though I have not done any focussed reading on the subject.

I'm satisfied that Boneyard Bill stated that these ideas are no more "real" than Christian poetic myths or other literature.

They are indeed as speculative as the theology of Anselm, Aquinas, new age writers or even Descartes. I find, Buddhism more appealing, though compared to the Jewish, Christian etc metaphors/stories.

Thanks again for the enlightenment.

AdamWho

victorialis:
Your point is well taken, of course we need all relevant information before we can criticize, but whether one likes or dislikes Buddhism is not relevant. As I stated previously I am interested in best practices. I also consider the trimmings of the religion (religious text, names of deity, dietary rules, ect.) to be irrelevant. How does Buddhism operate the individual and society?
Does Buddhism lead the follower down a blind path? Is it actually a useful tool to minimize suffering or is it a psychological trick the follower plays on themselves. Is the Buddhist happier or just thicker skinned and fatalistic? Is the concept "we are all one" empty, a non-concept?

sbaii

It's been a while since I read about Buddhism. But I don't see how you can separate Buddhism from the cultures where it originated (India)or flourished (China). It tells people to accept suffering which is a great way to keep the poor in their place. Not unlike Christianity which preaches that poverty is a virtue (which few practice voluntarily today) and that justice awaits us all after we die. I can't imagine very many poor people in this country would become Buddhists. How many truly hungry people want to be told to extinguish their desire for food? The buddha saw starvation and disease -- real suffering--and asked why does this happen? His answer was "that's life", not much comfort to starving sick people then or now.
I dare say most American buddhists are not starving and they have adequate medical care. So their suffering is mental and stress-related. They pursue a middleclass lifestyle which requires a faster and less healthful lifestyle.
They probably pencil in their meditation in their overloaded calendars along with their "dates" with their spouses. Or they have retired and are free to be nonconventional. The buddha couldn't have conceived of our crazy world. It might help some people to cope but it doesn't offer a way to solve the world's problems. SO why would someone prefer it to any other religion? Except to be esoteric?