Most peace oriented religions?

[evon]

I wanted to make a thread like this about which religions are most peace oriented, here meaning non-violent, equality, freedom, comfromising ect.


peace·ful (psfl)
adj.
1. Undisturbed by strife, turmoil, or disagreement; tranquil. See Synonyms at calm.
2. Inclined or disposed to peace; peaceable.
3. Of or characteristic of a condition of peace
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peaceful

To my knowlegde most religious adhering people usually list their own as the most peaceful, but if we compare them all, which is truly the most peaceful in its fundamentals (core belifs)?

My top choice is quite obvious to me, and its Jainism, a religion build around the very concept of non-violence;


Jainism at a glance


Jainism is an ancient religion from India that teaches that the way to liberation and bliss is to live lives of harmlessness and renunciation.

The essence of Jainism is concern for the welfare of every being in the universe and for the health of the universe itself.

Jains believe that animals and plants, as well as human beings, contain living souls. Each of these souls is considered of equal value and should be treated with respect and compassion.

Jains are strict vegetarians and live in a way that minimises their use of the world's resources.

Jains believe in reincarnation and seek to attain ultimate liberation - which means escaping the continuous cycle of birth, death and rebirth so that the immortal soul lives for ever in a state of bliss.

Liberation is achieved by eliminating all karma from the soul.
Jainism is a religion of self-help.

There are no gods or spiritual beings that will help human beings.
The three guiding principles of Jainism, the 'three jewels', are right belief, right knowledge and right conduct.

The supreme principle of Jain living is non violence (ahimsa).
This is one of the 5 mahavratas (the 5 great vows). The other mahavratas are non-attachment to possessions, not lying, not stealing, and sexual restraint (with celibacy as the ideal).

Mahavira is regarded as the man who gave Jainism its present-day form.
The texts containing the teachings of Mahavira are called the Agamas.
Jains are divided into two major sects; the Digambara (meaning "sky clad") sect and the Svetambara (meaning "white clad") sect.

Jainism has no priests. Its professional religious people are monks and nuns, who lead strict and ascetic lives.

Most Jains live in India, and according to the 2001 Census of India there are around 4.2 million living there. However, the Oxford Handbook of Global Religions, published in 2006, suggests that census figures may provide lower than the true number of followers as many Jains identify themselves as Hindu. The Handbook also states that there are around 25,000 Jains in Britain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/

Secondly, i would probabaly put Buddhism, maybe Wicca or one of the ancient religions that have died out for the most part, Baha'i also seems non-violent in many aspects.

So you guys have any particular ideas on this subject?

[Flintlocke]

There may have been some but they ceased to exist. Any idea must expand in order to survive, and everyone has expanded by force so far. Those Jehovas Witness are pacifist but that will be their downfall in the long run.

[Methmatician]

Well, since people are going to post about Jainism and Buddhism, I shall post about the Uwaisi school of Islam.


Uwaisīyaan refers to those Sufis who have gained the spiritual chain from another Sufi without physically meeting them in this world. Usually "Uwaisīan" are known as a school in Tasawwuf, and the word Uwaisi is its singular form. The "Uwaisī " form of spiritual transmission in the vocabulary of Islamic mysticism was named after Uwais Qarni, as it refers to the transmission of spiritual knowledge between two individuals without the need for physical interaction between them.

In the science of spirituality of Islam (Tasawwuf) the Uwaisi Transmission occurs when the spirits of righteous believers (saliheen, awliya) meet in the world called `alam al-arwaah (the world of spirits) which is beyond `alam al-ajsam (the material plane). Whoever takes knowledge through spirituality from a deceased master in `alam al-arwaah is called "Uwaisī". This means of transmission is considered as powerful and effective as the physical relation of master and disciple. The term "Uwaisī" is derived from the name of Uwais al-Qarni, who never met the Islamic prophet Muhammad physically, yet was fully aware of his spiritual presence at all times of his life. It is stated in Classical Islam and the Naqshbandi Sufi Tradition, by Shaykh Hisham Kabbani that: "The sign of the Favor of Allah Almighty and Exalted on his servant is to authorize one of His saints to uplift that servant to the Divine Presence. That is why many saints who came in previous times were guides for those who came after through this spiritual (Uwaisi) connection. It is known that many saints have been under the guidance and training of prophets and other saints that lifted them up."

About the creator:


Uwais Qarni

Uwais Qarni, known also as Saint Uwais Qarni, was a Muslim mystic, martyr and philosopher of Yemen who lived during the lifetime of Muhammad, but never met Muhammad personally. Qarni was born a Muslim, his father Abdullah was a strict Muslim and died when Qarni was still young. Qarni never met Muhammad in his lifetime, Yet Qarni was fully aware of Muhammads spiritual presence at all times of his life. The Uwaisi form of spiritual transmission in the vocabulary of Islamic mysticism was named after Uwais Qarni, as it refers to the transmission of spiritual knowledge between two individuals without the need for physical interaction between them.

The following are sayings attributed to Uwais Qarni:




"An aim is required before embarking on an action; therefore, if your aim is to find God and his Prophets, then you will surely reach your aim."
"And choose a friend who is able to free you from all else."
"What is considered as modesty during Islamic Prayer?", he was asked. "For you to be so attuned that even if an arrow pierces you, you remain unaware of it."
"Be such on the path of God, so that no one exists for you but Him."
"I wanted a high position in life, I found it in modesty. I wanted leadership, I found it in giving advice. I wanted dignity, I found it in honesty. I wanted greatness, I found it in poverty. I wanted lineage, I found it in virtue. I wanted majesty, I found it in contentment. I looked for peace and found it in asceticism."

[gold_fenix]

budhism clearly but is it really a religion? too the religion who professed Jesus (or their words) was peaceful but now has been corrupted and deformed

[Osprey]

Zoroastrianism
Amish.

[Flintlocke]

budhism clearly but is it really a religion? too the religion who professed Jesus (or their words) was peaceful but now has been corrupted and deformed

Buddhists didn't refrain from using violence when they had do. The samurai approached the Buddhists and learned lots of meditative techniques to calm the mind before battle. Shinto doesn't have any mystical overtones but the Buds have and they learned a lot.

[Germanicus]

Stoicism, is peaceful, It's something that you can practice and live a better life.

[Onur]

All the individualist religions are peaceful. Also there shouldn't be a missionary organization for a religion to be peaceful. A person should accept or reject it all by his own will.

[Germanicus]

All the individualist religions are peaceful. Also there shouldn't be a missionary organization for a religion to be peaceful. A person should accept or reject it all by his own will.

Quite right, and well said! :)

[Nurzat]

atheism

[Blackout]

Lets not forget, people do not follow a religion because it is just 'peaceful'. The message also has to make sense aswell.

[Lithium]

The fluffy Wiccans for sure, they are so liberal and peaceful it makes me sick.

[evon]

There may have been some but they ceased to exist. Any idea must expand in order to survive, and everyone has expanded by force so far. Those Jehovas Witness are pacifist but that will be their downfall in the long run.

So you dont think there are any today that are very or at least peaceful? except maybe as you mention Jehova. I dont considre them peaceful, because they use terms such as heaven and hell, which i find is the oppesite of peacefulness.


Well, since people are going to post about Jainism and Buddhism, I shall post about the Uwaisi school of Islam.


Did not say anything about peacefulness?
From my experience Sufism can be peaceful to a degree when compared to orthodox Islam, but Sufi's are also heavily over-represented amongst people whom led fights against colonial powers during the 17-1950 period, especially in North Africa and Sudan.


budhism clearly but is it really a religion? too the religion who professed Jesus (or their words) was peaceful but now has been corrupted and deformed

Buddhism is a religion, only the western model is considered a philosophy in anyway, which i think results from a secularisation of Buddhism in order to accept it better in a secular western mindset.




Zoroastrianism
Amish.

Really, arent they both heavily fused with the concept of going to hell?


Stoicism, is peaceful, It's something that you can practice and live a better life.

Can also lead to neurotic problems on a large degree, ignoring or trying to control ones feelings is a dangerous path..but i can see how one would see it as peaceful to a degree, but its hardly a religion in the modern sense of the term.


All the individualist religions are peaceful. Also there shouldn't be a missionary organization for a religion to be peaceful. A person should accept or reject it all by his own will.

I doubt that, it seems a naive view of people if you ask me, after all, terrorists also often follow religion on an individual level. Missionary activity is a nono i agree, but does it have anything to do with peacefulness?


atheism

Not a religion..

[evon]

Lets not forget, people do not follow a religion because it is just 'peaceful'. The message also has to make sense aswell.

thats a bit OT, since this thread is merely towards which is most peaceful, but to answer your question, to me peacefulness is a must if i am to fully respect a religion and its core beliefs.


The fluffy Wiccans for sure, they are so liberal and peaceful it makes me sick.

Yes, they are quite non-violent, but their roots in ancient religions such as Druidism are not very peaceful...

[StonyArabia]

Sufi Islam.

[Aura]

realism!

[askra]

Yes, Jainism can be considered the most peace oriented religion,
but if i here wore a mask to avoid to kill bacterias with my breath and walked around with a broom to avoid to crush the insects, i would be considered fooler than peace oriented!
http://www.mexicowoods.com/files/page4_blog_entry586_5.jpg

[Comte Arnau]

budhism clearly but is it really a religion? too the religion who professed Jesus (or their words) was peaceful but now has been corrupted and deformed

Only the Abrahamic dogmas are religion (from religo 'new tie'), which separate civic obligation from the philosophical aspect. The Eastern life philosophies are called religions these days because we've simply adjusted the world to our Eurocentric view of things.

[evon]

Only the Abrahamic dogmas are religion (from religo 'new tie'), which separate civic obligation from the philosophical aspect. The Eastern life philosophies are called religions these days because we've simply adjusted the world to our Eurocentric view of things.

Yes, religion is a outdated term, but do you have a better alternative at hand?

[Blackout]

thats a bit OT, since this thread is merely towards which is most peaceful, but to answer your question, to me peacefulness is a must if i am to fully respect a religion and its core beliefs.

Would you say that your a pacifist? :)

[Virtuous]

Satanism.

[arcticwolf]

To clear up any confusion here is the ethical principal of non-harm as it is explained in Buddhism:

Ahimsa: non-harm

The Pali word himsa means force. Ahimsa means no-force, or non-violence.

The Five Precepts form the basis of Buddhist ethics.
The first Precept expresses the principle of non-harm, or ahimsa.

The principle of ahimsa

is based on an understanding of the interconnectedness of all life
extends to all living beings
covers any deliberate action of thought, word or deed
involves avoiding deliberate harm and striving to bring about the greatest good

The other Precepts apply this principle to specific areas of behaviour, such as speech and sexual activity.

The Five Precepts

I undertake to abstain from taking life. With deeds of loving kindness I purify my body.

I undertake to abstain from taking what has not been given.With open handed generosity I purify my body.

I undertake to abstain from sexual misconduct. With stillness, simplicity and contentment I purify my body.

I undertake to abstain from false speech. With truthful communication I purify my speech.

I undertake to abstain from intoxicants that cloud the mind.With mindfulness, clear and radiant, I purify my mind.

Guidelines for Living

For Buddhists, the Five Precepts provide guidelines for leading an ethical life.The Precepts apply to all relationships including marriage, family life and sexual relationships
express the principle of ahimsa or non-harm
are based on an understanding of the interconnectedness of all life
extend to all beings
cover any deliberate action of thought, word or deed
indicate harmful behaviour to avoid and positive behaviour to develop
are not commandments, but a set of principles taken on voluntarily - in Buddhism there is no God to lay down commandments

[Blackout]

ArcticWolf, are you a Buddhist?

[arcticwolf]

ArcticWolf, are you a Buddhist?

That would be an affirmative Sir!

[Dacul]

Christian orthodoxy is peace oriented also.

[arcticwolf]

Christian orthodoxy is peace oriented also.

In principle all Christianity is suppose to be. The confusion is between Old and New Testament. The message of Christ from the New Testament/Gnostic lore is unmistakably peaceful, compassionate and good. The problem is Old Testament is not as clear as the New Testament. Simple example "eye for an eye" versus "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".

Old Testament should have never been a part of Christian teachings.

[Blackout]

That would be an affirmative Sir!

Ahah, thanks! Never met a 'Polish' Buddhist before... :)

[Stefan]

My roommate comes from a Buddhist family, and has told me that there are distinctions between Buddhist groups. When I brought up this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation), he told me that there are extremists even within Buddhism.


A number of Buddhist monks (including the most famous case of Thích Quảng Đức) immolated themselves in protest of the discriminatory treatment endured by Buddhists under the Roman Catholic administration of President Ngô Đình Diệm in South Vietnam — even though violence against oneself is prohibited by most interpretations of Buddhist doctrine. The twenty-third chapter of the Lotus Sutra recounts the life story of the Bodhisattva Medicine King, which served as the main inspiration for the monks and nuns who self-immolated. In the Sutra, the Medicine King demonstrates his insight into the selfless nature of his body by ritualistically setting his body aflame, spreading the "light of the Dharma" for twelve hundred years. Thich Nhat Hanh adds: "The bodhisattva shined his light about him so that everyone could see as he could see, giving them the opportunity to see the deathless nature of the ultimate."


He particularly mentioned Buddhists in Tibet.

http://www.china.org.cn/china/2011-10/17/content_23650487.htm


A living buddha on Monday denounced a recent chain of self-immolation attempts by monks from a monastery in southwest China's Sichuan Province, saying such extremism is detrimental to the development of Tibetan Buddhism.


In August, two monks of the Kirti Monastery were sentenced to 13 and 10 years in jail, respectively, for plotting, instigating and assisting in the self-immolation of fellow monk Rigzin Phuntsog, who set himself on fire on March 16 and died the following day.




As for the most peaceful religion, I'd say unorganized deisms tend to be the most peaceful. This includes the religious views of Albert Einstein and Thomas Jefferson. Organized religion has too much politics involved to be peaceful.

[Blackout]

My roommate comes from a Buddhist family, and has told me that there are distinctions between Buddhist groups. When I brought up this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation), he told me that there are extremists even within Buddhism.

He particularly mentioned Buddhists in Tibet.

http://www.china.org.cn/china/2011-10/17/content_23650487.htm

Quite interesting. Perhaps the most infamous picture, is of this monk:

http://denversyntax.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/thichquangducself-immolation.jpg

[Flintlocke]

http://warandgame.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/nva.jpg

These guys are Buddhists but they don't seem very peaceful, they fought the Mongols, the Japs the French, the Yankees, the Chinks, you name it.

[arcticwolf]

Ahah, thanks! Never met a 'Polish' Buddhist before... :)

There a quite a few, but not a significant number as of yet. There seem to be more of the Mahayana fold than Theravada though. Zen and Tibetan Buddhism are quite popular.

The appeal of Buddhism is its non believes based approach to reality.

Let's take the creation thing or the beginning of it all if you will.

In most religions it's an event at certain time when the creator decided to make it so out of the reasons know only to Him, and guessed by men.

Another thing is that everybody is born once and then lives his/her life, dies is judged and he/she goes to another place according to his/her conduct during his/her life.

There are a few issues with both these theories. God which is that from which all comes ( his own creation), let's call God singularity as it is his scientific equivalent.

At certain point God decided to create, it begs the question why? Let's accept for the moment the popular explanation ... out of love for humanity. Let's look at the facts before creation. There was no hell, there was no suffering, there was no evil. Beings that would have never existed now can be condemned to eternal suffering for "sins" they have committed during a single lifetime. Hmmm, don't sound too loving or compassionate does it?

Another problem with this is that singularity, perfection is still, without desires, wants or needs. So how come did the supreme being want to be worshipped, or even create? It's either an incorrect theory or the supreme being is not perfect, it's not singularity.

The problem with being born just once is this, how come some people are born deformed, too mentally ill to even understand the finer points of spirituality. Why some are born and then tortured, sexually abused, suffer massive amount of pain, are sickly etc? It does not make for an equal chance does it? If you are mentally unable to understand the teachings do you go to hell automatically? The whole thing is confusing and makes no sense.

The cop out "God works in mysterious ways" does not help much to understand it either.

Buddhism on the other hand takes a realistic approach, according to it cosmos has no beginning, it always was, the known universe and all other planes of existence go through the cycle of birth, lifespan and death just like everything else that exists. There is no mastermind, there is existence and the laws that govern it though they are impersonal in nature, as is everything that exists. It only appears personal to an undeveloped mind.

According to Buddhism beings or streams of consciousness go through the cycle of rebirths and are born in accordance with their karma or intentional deeds. It's the law of karma that makes a being be reborn in particular time/place/state and it's entirely dependent on the deeds of the one being reborn. No one decides before hand the fate of the person reborn but the person himself or herself through their own deeds. If the person is reborn in an unfavorable place let's say an equivalent of hell, he/she is there for the duration or until her "bad" karma runs out then he/she is reborn somewhere else. There is no eternal punishment or more precisely consequences. It follows the law of impermanence or change.

Another factor which I do appreciate is the refinement of the perception process in Buddhism. The thought process so prevalent in the world as useful as it is to understand duality fails far short of understanding the ultimate, it's just the wrong tool for the job. You wouldn't use a sledge hammer to build a Swiss watch. would you? ;)

Buddhism looks reality straight in the face and takes it apart piece by piece until it's finally understood completely. There are no dogmas, no beliefs, no rituals, no nothing but commitment to reality and the truth.

These are the reasons I became drawn to Buddhism, I no longer wanted to accept anybody's opinion of what reality is I wanted to see it clearly for myself. That is the main reason Europeans are drawn to Buddhism.

I hope this helps you understand why would someone with European background be a Buddhist. ;)

[Stefan]

According to Buddhism beings or streams of consciousness go through the cycle of rebirths and are born in accordance with their karma or intentional deeds. It's the law of karma that makes a being be reborn in particular time/place/state and it's entirely dependent on the deeds of the one being reborn. No one decides before hand the fate of the person reborn but the person himself or herself through their own deeds. If the person is reborn in an unfavorable place let's say an equivalent of hell, he/she is there for the duration or until her "bad" karma runs out then he/she is reborn somewhere else. There is no eternal punishment or more precisely consequences. It follows the law of impermanence or change.


The problem with this concept of "karma" is that it contradicts the previous notion you proposed of the laws being impersonal with the implication that they have no human predisposition or beliefs. Where does this "karma" come from, and how are the subjective notions of "right" and "wrong" determined by this karma to allocate people to their next life? Furthermore, one must accept a dualism of the mind/body which contradicts what we know of the brain and consciousness from science, which is quite obviously a superior form of epistemology than any other philosophy when it comes to describing nature. To me, it is just as fallacious - in its means of gaining knowledge- as any other religion, and has just as much mysticism, but in a different form and in different means.

[arcticwolf]

The problem with this concept of "karma" is that it contradicts the previous notion you proposed of the laws being impersonal with the implication that they have no human predisposition or beliefs. Where does this "karma" come from, and how are the subjective notions of "right" and "wrong" determined by this karma to allocate people to their next life? Furthermore, one must accept a dualism of the mind/body which contradicts what we know of the brain and consciousness from science, which is quite obviously a superior form of epistemology than any other philosophy when it comes to describing nature. To me, it is just as fallacious - in its means of gaining knowledge- as any other religion, and has just as much mysticism, but in a different form and in different means.

It doesn't come from anywhere it always was. Like gravity it just is and always will be, like gravity it's just an impersonal law. There is no right and wrong, there is that which leads the mind towards enlightenment and that which does not. In other words that which leads to minds evolution or regression. Buddhism uses the terms skillful and unskillful. You assume that there is something solid about you, there is not. You are a set of gazillions of processes that cooperate together because of previous causes.

Science does not know crap about the mind, it hardly knows anything about the brain. Science can not and will not capture non material reality. Material reality is the limit of science. You must find a better more suitable for the job tool if you hope to explore beyond that barrier.

Buddhism is not a philosophy, it's not a religion in its strict definition. I'm assuming you know very little about Buddhism, here is the thing Buddhism itself is the practice, it's the observation of reality and the corresponding transformation of the mind itself that is the gist of Buddhism, it's not the theory it's the experiential direct understanding of the very mechanics that is reality.

I know both the scientific approach and Buddhism, you have one sided view, how do you expect to understand something you know very little about?

[Stefan]

It doesn't come from anywhere it always was. Like gravity it just is and always will be, like gravity it's just an impersonal law. There is no right and wrong, there is that which leads the mind towards enlightenment and that which does not. In other words that which leads to minds evolution or regression. Buddhism uses the terms skillful and unskillful. You assume that there is something solid about you, there is not. You are a set of gazillions of processes that cooperate together because of previous causes.

Yet there is no empirical basis for "karma" while there is an empirical basis for gravity.



Science does not know crap about the mind, it hardly knows anything about the brain. Science can not and will not capture non material reality. Material reality is the limit of science. You must find a better more suitable for the job tool if you hope to explore beyond that barrier.

Science is the method of empirical deduction. From what we know, through these means, the conscious mind and subconscious mind are both manifestations of neural pathways and coordinated patterns of neural impulses. Anything else is an assumption, and despite the lack of knowledge we have through science, Buddhism makes even less empirical prediction and conclusions in regards to the mind, only assumptions - hypotheses. Despite whatever you say, it isn't based on empirical data, which of course when describing nature, is inherently inferior.




Buddhism is not a philosophy, it's not a religion in its strict definition. I'm assuming you know very little about Buddhism, here is the thing Buddhism itself is the practice, it's the observation of reality and the corresponding transformation of the mind itself that is the gist of Buddhism, it's not the theory it's the experiential direct understanding of the very mechanics that is reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy


Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".[4][5][6] In more casual speech the "philosophy" of a particular person can refer to the beliefs held by that person.


Buddhism does not do this?



I know both the scientific approach and Buddhism, you have one sided view, how do you expect to understand something you know very little about?

From what I've seen, your knowledge of the "scientific approach" is comparable to my knowledge of the "Buddhism approach." However, I solely replied to your statements, which had a logical contradiction embedded within them. Instead of correcting your logical contradiction you declare me as ignorant. Yes, I am, please inform me though instead of redirecting me.

How does karma work, physically and/or naturally? What evidence of karma is there?

[Óttar]

Jainism is the most peaceful, although I find their level of asceticism to be ridiculous to say the least. I don't think their extremism is healthy, and Jainism has unfortunately infected Hinduism. But all that aside, pound for pound they are the most peaceful, unless you consider starving yourself to death, or not brushing your teeth for fear of killing germs to be acts of violence. :cool:


Did not say anything about peacefulness?
From my experience Sufism can be peaceful to a degree when compared to orthodox Islam, but Sufi's are also heavily over-represented amongst people whom led fights against colonial powers during the 17-1950 period, especially in North Africa and Sudan.
The Muslim brotherhood was founded by a Sufi and Sufi orders are involved with them. It would not surprise me if there were Sufis in Al-Qaeda. There are many Sufis in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and these countries don't have a good track record of peace. Even the sufi poet Rumi extolled the demolition of a Hindu temple after the conquest of Somanatha in India, and wrote in one of his poems, "Turkify all Hinduanity..." :mad:


Buddhism is a religion, only the western model is considered a philosophy in anyway, which i think results from a secularisation of Buddhism in order to accept it better in a secular western mindset.
That's a good point. I've read books on Buddhism that said that teaching Westerners the more cultural aspects of Buddhist rituals (in Vajrayana for example) would be counter-productive and meaningless, but I do not think this is true at all. One must also understand the cultural contexts i.e. folk customs, languages etc. After the death of the Buddha, several sects popped up and started spreading around. One scholar even believed that Alexandrian "paganism" survived in a certain school of Japanese Buddhism.

The Mahayana and Vajrayana schools of Buddhism emerged later on in history and the explanation for the founding of Mahayana is completely fantastical. It is said, the Buddha deposited secret teachings with the Nagas, snake spirits, which would be reintroduced to mankind upon the emergence of a leader qualified enough to teach them. This is almost identical to the Sufi claim that Muhammad had special secret teachings which he conveniently only revealed to a few of his intimate companions. Similar claims are made by esoteric spiritual movements pretty much everywhere.


Wicca... roots in druidism...
Nonsense. Nobody knows much about the practices of the Druids in the first place, to link them to Wicca in even the most tenuous manner is balderdash in the highest. I once read a shirt which read, "Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1953."

[arcticwolf]

Yet there is no empirical basis for "karma" while there is an empirical basis for gravity.

Since when? Isaac Newton? 500 years everybody was convinced earth was flat.


Science is the method of empirical deduction. From what we know, through these means, the conscious mind and subconscious mind are both manifestations of neural pathways and coordinated patterns of neural impulses. Anything else is an assumption, and despite the lack of knowledge we have through science, Buddhism makes even less empirical prediction and conclusions in regards to the mind, only assumptions - hypotheses. Despite whatever you say, it isn't based on empirical data, which of course when describing nature, is inherently inferior.

From what we know is your proof? You gotta do better than that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy



Buddhism does not do this?

As I said, philosophy is mostly theory Buddhism is practice.



From what I've seen, your knowledge of the "scientific approach" is comparable to my knowledge of the "Buddhism approach." However, I solely replied to your statements, which had a logical contradiction embedded within them. Instead of correcting your logical contradiction you declare me as ignorant. Yes, I am, please inform me though instead of redirecting me.

Hahaha oh boy. Your ego gets in the way my friend. I just stated a simple fact. ;)

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about, so here it is. When I said duality I did not mean mind/body complex, cold/hot or tall/short. I meant the duality of the reality itself as in material reality ( matter and energy ), and the non material part of reality, don't confuse this with singularity. The non material part of duality is the part of reality which you can not measure because it's not a matter or energy, but just as energy or matter it is impermanent. Singularity is non material but separate from both and it is a permanent state.

How does karma work, physically and/or naturally? What evidence of karma is there?

:D Well here it is, as karma is non material and affects non material part of reality in the ethical sphere you will see it's effects but you won't measure them, because there is nothing to measure. It is the law of cause and effect in the ethical sphere, and like any law it really doesn't give a damn if we can measure or even understand it it will work no matter what.

Tell me now since you are so familiar with scientific approach where do electrons go when they jump orbit? has anyone figure that one yet? Do you believe in electrons? If science can not explain this rationally do they really exist? ;)

[Stefan]

:D Well here it is, as karma is non material and affects non material part of reality in the ethical sphere you will see it's effects but you won't measure them, because there is nothing to measure. It is the law of cause and effect in the ethical sphere, and like any law it really doesn't give a damn if we can measure or even understand it it will work no matter what.

How can a system described as separate from material reality, affect material reality without having any measurable effects? As you brought up, there is a matter of causality here. If this "non material part of reality" affects the "material part of reality" it must have observable effects, as delineated by causality.




Tell me now since you are so familiar with scientific approach where do electrons go when they jump orbit? has anyone figure that one yet? Do you believe in electrons? If science can not explain this rationally do they really exist? ;)

"Electron" is just a word given to an observable phenomenon. Their existence is precisely defined by what we observe. It isn't the verification of the concept, but a concept given to an observed phenomenon. It's similar to declaring the existence of a tree upon seeing it, and then defining its characteristics. Meanwhile, karma, as you've even noted, can not be observed and hence anything said about it is an assumption or what we'd call in science - a hypothesis.

[arcticwolf]

How can a system described as separate from material reality, affect material reality without having any measurable effects? As you brought up, there is a matter of causality here. If this "non material part of reality" affects the "material part of reality" it must have observable effects, as delineated by causality.




"Electron" is just a word given to an observable phenomenon. Their existence is precisely defined by what we observe. It isn't the verification of the concept, but a concept given to an observed phenomenon. It's similar to declaring the existence of a tree upon seeing it, and then defining its characteristics. Meanwhile, karma, as you've even noted, can not be observed and hence anything said about it is an assumption or what we'd call in science - a hypothesis.

Well can you measure the subconscious mind? It runs the whole damn body. how can that be? Yeah it uses the part of the brain, you can see the electric, chemical and biological stuff but can you measure thoughts and ideas? Magic?

What's so hard to understand about material and non material reality working together? Why is that impossible, because science is unable to prove or disprove it? To you the only reality possible is that that can be measured? Why is science the best tool to understand non material reality? If science can't touch the non material reality is the proof enough that it does not exist?

As I said without the experience you will not understand it. Your view is form one perspective only and it's only limited to the observable by the senses or instruments that the senses can interpret. In other words you stick to the method of getting to know the unknown through the known. THIS DOES NOT MEAN that you are ignorant, it just means those are the methods YOU consider reliable and trustworthy. This disclaimer is here for a reason, so you don't call me dumb or get offended! :D

Just for a second imagine that there is a way to get to know the unknown through the unknown. Weird eh? :D

As to electrons you did not answer my question, my question was very specific, when electrons jump from one orbit to another there is no path, we can't see it or measure it, where do they go? It seems they lose all material properties for a moment ( no mass no energy ) and then they appear on another orbit like nothing happened. Where were they? Would that possibly mean they go thru oh NO non material reality? Oh God forbid it can't exist because we can't measure it. :laugh:

[Stefan]

]
As to electrons you did not answer my question, my question was very specific, when electrons jump from one orbit to another there is no path, we can't see it or measure it, where do they go? It seems they lose all material properties for a moment ( no mass no energy ) and then they appear on another orbit like nothing happened. Where were they? Would that possibly mean they go thru oh NO non material reality? Oh God forbid it can't exist because we can't measure it. :laugh:

It isn't that it can't exist. It is that we can't be logically certain of its existence, because there is no basis for that assumption. One can only speculate of this separate reality. It is the equivalent of Aristotle and his belief of the four elements of nature. Even if this separate reality, which obviously isn't separate if it affects the reality we observe, does exist - random speculation certainly isn't probabilistically accurate in describing its nature. That is why empirical conclusions are the most sound and accurate, and everything else we must claim ignorance of.

As for the electron, it is the case that it can only exist at these discrete energy levels in a bound system, not that it doesn't exist. There is still the matter of the conservation laws and the conservation of energy to consider. In order for this electron to change its energy level it requires a photon to be absorbed by the bound system(the atom) and the bounded system only accepts photons with a certain Δ E, meaning when that energy is absorbed by the atom, the electron must be excited by a discrete value. This occurs almost instantaneously (on the scale of pico-seconds.) Nothing in this system is unexplainable, on the contrary, it is the most empirical theory of science. These non-intuitive concepts, such as uncertainty in momentum/position, are accepted because that's how they're observed.

[arcticwolf]

It isn't that it can't exist. It is that we can't be logically certain of its existence, because there is no basis for that assumption. One can only speculate of this separate reality. It is the equivalent of Aristotle and his belief of the four elements of nature. Even if this separate reality, which obviously isn't separate if it affects the reality we observe, does exist - random speculation certainly isn't probabilistically accurate in describing its nature. That is why empirical conclusions are the most sound and accurate, and everything else we must claim ignorance of.

As for the electron, it is the case that it can only exist at these discrete energy levels in a bound system, not that it doesn't exist. There is still the matter of the conservation laws and the conservation of energy to consider. In order for this electron to change its energy level it requires a photon to be absorbed by the bound system(the atom) and the bounded system only accepts photons with a certain Δ E, meaning when that energy is absorbed by the atom, the electron must be excited by a discrete value. This occurs almost instantaneously (on the scale of pico-seconds.) Nothing in this system is unexplainable, on the contrary, it is the most empirical theory of science. These non-intuitive concepts, such as uncertainty in momentum/position, are accepted because that's how they're observed.

Alright amigo, I'm done, this will turn into ego fight and I am not into it. You win. There is only that which can be proved by science.

We just have to agree to disagree on this subject. I hope we can still be friends. :D

[Insuperable]

As to electrons you did not answer my question, my question was very specific, when electrons jump from one orbit to another there is no path, we can't see it or measure it, where do they go? It seems they lose all material properties for a moment ( no mass no energy ) and then they appear on another orbit like nothing happened. Where were they? Would that possibly mean they go thru oh NO non material reality? Oh God forbid it can't exist because we can't measure it. :laugh:

You are thinking of electrons as they are some sort of billiard balls who magically vanished and appeared. Thomas Young, Fresnel, Arago... (And even in the 17th century Huygens and Grimaldi and possibly even before them De Vinci) have shown that light does not travel in direct path but travels as a wave. Later Einstein proposed that light is composed of particles which was the beginning of wave-particle dualism where particle can have a particle like nature ( in an analogy of a ball ) and wave like nature but not at the same time though. Later De Broglie gave one of the most daring theories in the history of science. He proposed that wave-particle dualism can be applied not only to masseles photons but can also be applied to electrons and even matter. His theory was very criticized but fortunately two scientists (Thompson, son of JJ Thompson and Davidsson) managed to test that theory in the electrons case.
Diffraction slit experiments were done with neutrons and even with the assemble of 30 million molecules and they all show wave like nature. (Since we are talking about wave nature that does not mean that electrons can appear anywhere in infinity or anywhere outside the atom but that path is closed into the loop around the orbit which means that an electron on a certain orbit is located in the whole orbit at the same time.)
Because of this particle-wave dualism you will encounter stranger things than simple thinking of what happens to electron when it jumps orbit. Although I know wave nature of particles won't satisfy your answer since it does not satisfies anyone's, the point is that all matter can have wave nature even you and the reason why you or anybody else does not tunnel through walls or distances is because human's De Broglie wavelength is just too small for humans which leads to my point that your theory of non material reality regarding our physical world is nonsense.
Anyway quantum entanglement is even weirder than electron tunneling from one orbital to another and yet more and more about it is being discovered.

[arcticwolf]

You are thinking of electrons as they are some sort of billiard balls who magically vanished and appeared. Thomas Young, Fresnel, Arago... (And even in the 17th century Huygens and Grimaldi and possibly even before them De Vinci) have shown that light does not travel in direct path but travels as a wave. Later Einstein proposed that light is also composed of particles which was the beginning of wave-particle dualism where particle can have a particle like nature ( in an analogy of a ball ) and wave like nature but not at the same time though. Later De Broglie gave one of the most daring theories in the history of science. He proposed that wave-particle dualism can be applied not only to masseles photons but can also be applied to electrons and even matter. His theory was very criticized but fortunately two scientists (Thompson, son of JJ Thompson and Davidsson) managed to test that theory in thr electrons case.
Diffraction slit experiments were done with neutrons and even with the assemble of 30 million molecules and they all show wave like nature. Since we are talking about wave nature that does not mean that electrons can appear anywhere in infinity or anywhere outside the atom but that path is closed into the loop around the orbit which means that an electron on a certain orbit is located in the whole orbit at the same time.
Because of this particle-wave dualism you will encounter strange things than simple thinking of what happens to electrons when he jumps orbit. Although I know wave nature of particles won't satisfy your answer since it does not satisfies anyone's. The point is that all matter can have wave nature even you and the reason why you or anybody else does not tunnel through walls or distances is because human's De Broglie wavelength is just too small because humans move at non relativistic speeds which leads to my point that your theory of non material reality regarding our physical world is nonsense.

Thanks for enlightening me! :thumb001:

[Aura]

You are thinking of electrons as they are some sort of billiard balls who magically vanished and appeared. Thomas Young, Fresnel, Arago... (And even in the 17th century Huygens and Grimaldi and possibly even before them De Vinci) have shown that light does not travel in direct path but travels as a wave. Later Einstein proposed that light is also composed of particles which was the beginning of wave-particle dualism where particle can have a particle like nature ( in an analogy of a ball ) and wave like nature but not at the same time though. Later De Broglie gave one of the most daring theories in the history of science. He proposed that wave-particle dualism can be applied not only to masseles photons but can also be applied to electrons and even matter. His theory was very criticized but fortunately two scientists (Thompson, son of JJ Thompson and Davidsson) managed to test that theory in thr electrons case.
Diffraction slit experiments were done with neutrons and even with the assemble of 30 million molecules and they all show wave like nature. Since we are talking about wave nature that does not mean that electrons can appear anywhere in infinity or anywhere outside the atom but that path is closed into the loop around the orbit which means that an electron on a certain orbit is located in the whole orbit at the same time.
Because of this particle-wave dualism you will encounter strange things than simple thinking of what happens to electrons when he jumps orbit. Although I know wave nature of particles won't satisfy your answer since it does not satisfies anyone's. The point is that all matter can have wave nature even you and the reason why you or anybody else does not tunnel through walls or distances is because human's De Broglie wavelength is just too small because humans move at non relativistic speeds which leads to my point that your theory of non material reality regarding our physical world is nonsense.
what do u think about double split experiment, I think u know about that?!

[Rouxinol]

Islam is said to be the religion of Peace.

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/09/15/1226474/864170-islamic-protest-in-sydney.jpg

[SKYNET]

Most peace oriented religions?

I hope it's a joke :)

[Insuperable]

what do u think about double split experiment, I think u know about that?!

What about it? What do you mean what I think about it?

[Aura]

What about it? What do you mean what I think about it?

I mean, since you were talking about partical wave dualism and I was expecting to mention also the double split experiment, which really blows my mind :D anyway nobody can understand or define the strange nature of quantum mechanics, its just out of our reallity I think according to classical physics, its about randomnes and probability its not like Einstein thought 'God does not play dice with universe' he actually does :D

[Stefan]

Alright amigo, I'm done, this will turn into ego fight and I am not into it. You win. There is only that which can be proved by science.

We just have to agree to disagree on this subject. I hope we can still be friends. :D

I was more interested in having a discussion that didn't involve "ego" or personal emotions, despite my blunt claims that science is the superior epistemology. However, I will agree to disagree, albeit sadly I feel unsettled that I closed you from conversation by my tone, possibly.

By the way, no discussion should cause me to end a friendship. :) In fact, a good debater is a quality I like in friends.

[Insuperable]

--

[Insuperable]

I mean, since you were talking about partical wave dualism and I was expecting to mention also the double split experiment, which really blows my mind :D anyway nobody can understand or define the strange nature of quantum mechanics, its just out of our reallity I think according to classical physics, its about randomnes and probability its not like Einstein thought 'God does not play dice with universe' he actually does :D

Its double-slit not double split experiment:D. I mentioned diffraction slit experiments and that automatically means double slit like experiments wjhich were performed on neutrons and heavy molecules.
I was rushy in writing though in saying that the wave nature of the assemble of 30 million molecules was proven with diffraction slit like experiments. They were not. That was proven in more sophisticated experiment.

[Alenka]

Paganism.

[Blackout]

There a quite a few, but not a significant number as of yet. There seem to be more of the Mahayana fold than Theravada though. Zen and Tibetan Buddhism are quite popular.

The appeal of Buddhism is its non believes based approach to reality.

Let's take the creation thing or the beginning of it all if you will.

In most religions it's an event at certain time when the creator decided to make it so out of the reasons know only to Him, and guessed by men.

Another thing is that everybody is born once and then lives his/her life, dies is judged and he/she goes to another place according to his/her conduct during his/her life.

There are a few issues with both these theories. God which is that from which all comes ( his own creation), let's call God singularity as it is his scientific equivalent.

At certain point God decided to create, it begs the question why? Let's accept for the moment the popular explanation ... out of love for humanity. Let's look at the facts before creation. There was no hell, there was no suffering, there was no evil. Beings that would have never existed now can be condemned to eternal suffering for "sins" they have committed during a single lifetime. Hmmm, don't sound too loving or compassionate does it?

Another problem with this is that singularity, perfection is still, without desires, wants or needs. So how come did the supreme being want to be worshipped, or even create? It's either an incorrect theory or the supreme being is not perfect, it's not singularity.

The problem with being born just once is this, how come some people are born deformed, too mentally ill to even understand the finer points of spirituality. Why some are born and then tortured, sexually abused, suffer massive amount of pain, are sickly etc? It does not make for an equal chance does it? If you are mentally unable to understand the teachings do you go to hell automatically? The whole thing is confusing and makes no sense.

The cop out "God works in mysterious ways" does not help much to understand it either.

Buddhism on the other hand takes a realistic approach, according to it cosmos has no beginning, it always was, the known universe and all other planes of existence go through the cycle of birth, lifespan and death just like everything else that exists. There is no mastermind, there is existence and the laws that govern it though they are impersonal in nature, as is everything that exists. It only appears personal to an undeveloped mind.

According to Buddhism beings or streams of consciousness go through the cycle of rebirths and are born in accordance with their karma or intentional deeds. It's the law of karma that makes a being be reborn in particular time/place/state and it's entirely dependent on the deeds of the one being reborn. No one decides before hand the fate of the person reborn but the person himself or herself through their own deeds. If the person is reborn in an unfavorable place let's say an equivalent of hell, he/she is there for the duration or until her "bad" karma runs out then he/she is reborn somewhere else. There is no eternal punishment or more precisely consequences. It follows the law of impermanence or change.

Another factor which I do appreciate is the refinement of the perception process in Buddhism. The thought process so prevalent in the world as useful as it is to understand duality fails far short of understanding the ultimate, it's just the wrong tool for the job. You wouldn't use a sledge hammer to build a Swiss watch. would you? ;)

Buddhism looks reality straight in the face and takes it apart piece by piece until it's finally understood completely. There are no dogmas, no beliefs, no rituals, no nothing but commitment to reality and the truth.

These are the reasons I became drawn to Buddhism, I no longer wanted to accept anybody's opinion of what reality is I wanted to see it clearly for myself. That is the main reason Europeans are drawn to Buddhism.

I hope this helps you understand why would someone with European background be a Buddhist. ;)

Thank you very much, for taking the time out to write all of this!

[The Lawspeaker]

Religion and peace oriented. It's a bit like Republicans being socialist.

[evon]

Some points to show why sufism does not naturally equal peaceful practise as so many here seem to assume.

some Sufi movements thought history:

Safavid Sufism Iran/Anatolia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qizilbash

Sanussi order North Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senussi

Mahdi movement in Sudan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ahmad_ibn_as_Sayyid_Abd_Allah

ect, Sufistic history is littered with similar military orders..