Strange Form of Buddhism NO ATHEISTS

one_raven said:
Did you read what I linked to?
Here's a direct link to the article.
It is hardly a "secondary source".
All the quotes in the article, which was written by an eminent Buddhist scholar, come directly from the Pali Canon - you can't get any more "primary" than that.

Where are all your quotes coming from?

"(Gospel of Buddha, Chapter 52)" is certainly not a valid reference to any book of the Pali Canon, therefore must be a "secondary source", I suppose.

What is the "Gospel of Buddha"?
Who wrote it?
It is certainly possible that whoever wrote the "Gospel of Buddha" was quoting the Pali Canon directly, but without a reference to a book in the Canon (which is the standard when discussing what the Buddha actually said), I have no way to look it up and see it in context.

You seem to know somtething about Buddhism, so I feel fairly certain you know what the Pali Canon is, correct? I hope so.
If you do, then you must be aware that anything outside the Pali Canon, can not be considered a "primary Source" since it IS the "primary source" that all else in Buddhism is based on.
Click to expand...

The Gospel of Buddha is compiled of many different ancient Buddhists scriptures. Majority of everything in the Gospel of Buddha is known to be authentic, a compilation of primary Buddhist texts.

And Yeah, I read the link you gave me. Seems to be biasely written by someone using propaganda. The author claims that it doesn't fit into the ideas of karma and rebirth, however The Buddha clearly addressed this, saying there is rebirth and karma without a self. It is very easy to understand the Buddha did not believe in any soul or self, but that we are an aggragation of different things, like a machine.

The link you gave me uses very very weak arguments to say that The Buddha does not teach a no-self doctorine. Obviously the author does not understand how transmigration and the law of karma can exist without a self/soul, so he uses very fragile, weak arguments in an attempt to say that The Buddha means one thing and says another.
 
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree unless you can convince me otherwise.
You haven't, and I clearly haven't convinced you either.

I still would like Pali Canon references for those quotes so I can read them in context.
Do you have that?
 
Gordon said:
Yes an infinite universe is logically possible unlike a universe creating itself at some point which is logically impossible.

The problem of a cycling infinite universe is that entropy is not apparently cycling. It appears to be a one way direction of increase (Second Law of Thermodynamics). This then causes you a real problem with infinitely old universes. You have to reset or reverse entropy (or a combination of both) or else you get 'heat death' which we clearly do not have. In fact you have to do the reversing or resetting an infinite number of times in an infinite universe. to avoid total entropy and heat death. So what is the Buddhist explanation for resetting or reversing entropy so that an infinitely old universe does not suffer heat death but does recycle if there is no external force to be the cause of those effects?
Click to expand...

I can't offer Buddha's resolution, but I can give my personal opinion on the matter.
The entropy refutation of an infinitely old universe has never struck me as valid - though it may have just never been explained well enough for me to grasp it the way I should.
As far as I am aware, the Buddha accepted the Vedic explantion of the Prana and Akasha that essentially states that there is a single fundamental particle and a single fundamental force.

If such is the case, which I can certainly accept the possibility - to say the least - then I don't see why entropy would be an issue at all.

Picture a static field.
There is a sea of discrete fundamental particles spread evenly in equilibrium with the amount of energy in the universe.

Now, imagine that something disturbs that balance.
The distubance of that balance causes the particles to be attracted to/repelled from each other.
Particles begin to clump together.
Pressure and heats builds at the core as it gets larger and larger.
As the distinct "clumps" continue to grow, they exert a greater attracive force on the discrete particles around them and the activity begins to ecalate exponentially.
We have the beginnings of bodies in space.
The bodies attract other bodies, pressure, friction, collisions, heat (it's starting to sound sexy ;)) ...
We have the birth of the universe as we know it.

Now imagine planets, solar systems, etc getting destroyed and pummeled as they explode - as stars go out - as planets collide - as entire solar systems gets annihilated...
Gravity is still there.
The cycle will continue in the way it always had, and bodies will begin to form again.

Now imagine this happening on local scales, at all different levels of creation and destruction, all over the Universe at all times.

What about the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules this possibility out?
Why is this scenraio of cyclical localized black holes, little bangs, supernovas, etc impossible?

Am I missing something obvious?
 
one_raven said:
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree unless you can convince me otherwise.
You haven't, and I clearly haven't convinced you either.

I still would like Pali Canon references for those quotes so I can read them in context.
Do you have that?
Click to expand...

Well almost everything in the Gospel of Buddha comes from Pali Canon texts. The Gospel of Buddha is simply a compilation of these texts. I don't have the exact compilation Chapter for Chapter from the Gospel of Buddha, but its easy to see where they come from in the Gospel of Buddha

For example, look at this verse from the Udana ( http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/udn/udn8.htm ) and The Gospel of Buddha http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel_buddha/chapter_26.htm They are identical,
 
spidergoat said:
I read a book by the Dali Lama about Buddhism and science. He said that ancient Buddhist cosmology was a best guess based on the tools they had, and that we should be open to what modern science reveals.
Click to expand...
Rational fellow!

One question I have is how much the practice depends on the philosophy. Would Buddhists consider meditation useful even for non-Buddhists?
 
Zephyr,
I think Buddhists do suggest that meditation is useful for non-Buddhists, and some even suggest that Buddhism is not incompatable with other religions.

one_raven,
Life is a form of non-entropy. Although life is a tiny percentage of the known mass of the universe, that might not always be the case.

Also, if entropy eventually leads to all particles being evenly separate from each other floating in a cloud in space, is that not also a kind of order?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top