Discussion in 'Religion' started by runcai, Jun 26, 2014.
Not if anyone doesn't know him (Jack)
I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.
"Only real bros love Jesus, bro. We're hardcore up in this chizzeezy."
I agree, that is why I don't go to religion for anything. I really don't need a big sky daddy to pat me on the head and tell me to behave.
Besides, I'm having too much fun just being me.
Does "he" really tell you to behave?
"Jesus didn't tap."
-Pope Boniface I
But he did ride into town on an ass...
Dat rear mount.
My thought is that self-fulfilling prophecy can make you feel really comfortable.
All belief is self-fulfilling prophecy.
We are naturally biased to reinforcing the cosmological models we are brought up with, or explore for ourselves later.
But does that reflect on how true a model might be?
... And what do you think of conversion from one model to another?
"True" is a tricky word.
We can aim for "truth" with the scientific method, but you can't eliminate bias.
Humans are generally defensive and blinkered when it comes to their "truth". Also, it seems that the more demonstrably false a belief is, the harder those invested in it will defend it.
Better to admit you don't have a clue, in my opinion. Just be happy in your life as a semi-domesticated ape
But to admit this is to some is to admit a wrong
Also, to admit a wrong would lose followers
There is a Korean school of Zen that works on developing "don't know mind". It's about giving up your assumptions and admitting you don't know. The goal is to accept reality as it is without having to be able to understand or explain it.
There is the story of a monk walking down a path when he stubs his toe, hard. At that moment he is enlightened because it doesn't matter how the rock got there or why he didn't see it. The reality was his toe freaking hurt no matter what the reason.
Sometimes life is like that.
I'd be willing to say, about science and knowledge in general, that I don't know why it works, but the fact that it keeps working is enough for me.
A good step on the road to wisdom.
it is like a leaf falling off a tree
I would say to that, if the monk had of been observing the trail/reality he would not have stubbed his toe in first place. The goal of Buddhism is to reduce suffering is it not? Or at least how to deal with it?
If that is the case then I would say that why the rock was there is and why it wasn't seen is very important.
I think that this is where science just gets way ahead of religion because with scientific thinking you can study cause and effect. You can look at what is causing suffering and attempt to learn from it and change it. For example there are numerous diseases out there that people just don't suffer from anymore because the disease has been studied and/or eliminated.
Not just disease but any problem can be treated this way, I believe. It doesn't make sense to me to just accept it. Why not ask did this happen? And how can we stop it from happening to others?
Actually I think this story kind of outlines a negative outlook on life. It is saying life is painful and we should just accept it. I think it's better to say life is painful, but it doesn't have to be.
Nope, it's just saying life is what it is.
As for science I am all for it. We are a curious species of ape and like to know why. Science works best when you don't assume you have the answers already.
IE, why did x happen, god did it. That monk would answer, really?
BTW, the rock was there to help him become enlightened, at least for the moment. He was truly in the moment at that time because the pain had a way of focusing his mind. If he had been in the moment and paying attention he wouldn't have needed the rock to remind him.
Oh yeah, science doesn't claim to have THE answer, just the best answer for what we know at the time. Something better may come along.
Sorry, but I disagree, as you said that the goal was to accept reality and that it doesn't matter why the monk didn't see the rock or why it was there.
Just saying that life is painful is focusing on the negative aspects of it. Sometimes pain is good. Sometimes it's worth it. Just saying that life is what it is doesn't really address that.
Was it there to enlighten him? Or was it just there? I think that assuming the rock was there to teach him is a rather egocentric assumption to make about the rock.
He may have learned something from stubbing his toe, but that doesn't mean that the rock was there to specifically teach him or do anything but be a rock.
Separate names with a comma.