Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[JimL]

I know you mean this as an insult, but Christ said:

Actually no, I didn't mean it as an insult at all, its just that OBP is kind of a dope. All I meant was that there is another way to interpret the message of the cross, although I know that Christians like Sparko don't interpret it that way. I suppose one could see "immature, meek, and fearful as an insult, but that is who I see the christian interpretation directed at.

"Let the little children come unto me ..."

"The meek shall inherit the Earth."

Just sayin ...

Yes I know, "for in such as these is the kingdom of heaven." Psychological!
.

[rossum]

You honestly read that into what I said?

I described Buddhist cosmology, "Buddhist cosmology has good points and bad points. Like all Indian religions, it knows that stars are actually other suns a very very long way away, and that those suns are associated with their own set of planets."

You responded:

Lot of words to say "there is no scientific evidence for these things I believe in".

What else do you expect me to say?

Out pure curiousity, would you mind citing the Buddhist text you're referring to that discusses stars and planets?

Certainly, here are three:

A "Buddha field/land" (buddhakṣetra) in this context is at minimum a single star and its planets, though it may be larger. Each Buddha field has its own Buddha.

Multiple worlds are part of the assumed background of Hindu and Buddhist scripture. There are no doubt similar examples in Hindu scripture.

And just to be clear, what I was referring to by cosmology had more to do with the 31 planes of existence. Is it your understanding, though, that the cosmology we find in Buddhist writings align with modern science?

Only the material planes can possibly align with science; the immaterial planes are outwith science. We observe the human and animal planes. Some interpret the upper hells and lower heavens as also existing on earth. Pleasant and unpleasant lives are observable on earth.

No doubt. Christianity embraces meditation as well.

Yes. The Jesus Prayer resembles some introductory Buddhist and Hindu meditation methods.

rossum

[One Bad Pig]

Actually no, I didn't mean it as an insult at all, its just that OBP is kind of a dope. All I meant was that there is another way to interpret the message of the cross, although I know that Christians like Sparko don't interpret it that way. I suppose one could see "immature, meek, and fearful as an insult, but that is who I see the christian interpretation directed at.

Yes I know, "for in such as these is the kingdom of heaven." Psychological!
.

JimL, we're not nearly as stupid as you patently think we are.

[Sparko]

Actually no, I didn't mean it as an insult at all, its just that OBP is kind of a dope. All I meant was that there is another way to interpret the message of the cross, although I know that Christians like Sparko don't interpret it that way. I suppose one could see "immature, meek, and fearful as an insult, but that is who I see the christian interpretation directed at.

Yes I know, "for in such as these is the kingdom of heaven." Psychological!
.

So what other way can you interpret the message of the cross?

[Tassman]

Because I belong to God.

Correction: You BELIEVE you belong to God, this is not a substantiated fact.

John 8:47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.

...or that God is non-existent.

[Adrift]

I described Buddhist cosmology, "Buddhist cosmology has good points and bad points. Like all Indian religions, it knows that stars are actually other suns a very very long way away, and that those suns are associated with their own set of planets."

You responded:



What else do you expect me to say?



Certainly, here are three:

A "Buddha field/land" (buddhakṣetra) in this context is at minimum a single star and its planets, though it may be larger. Each Buddha field has its own Buddha.

Multiple worlds are part of the assumed background of Hindu and Buddhist scripture. There are no doubt similar examples in Hindu scripture.

So I spent a bit of time digging into some literature on Buddhist cosmology, and after that actually discussed this issue with a number of other Buddhists, and it pretty much confirmed my suspicion that your interpretation of these sutras is inaccurate. To a man, the consensus was that the concept of Buddha Fields definitely should not be mapped to modern scientific accounts. As it was explained to me, the sutras are describing something that is far more conceptual or transcendental than scientific. That it is absurd to think that the Buddha knew about, or had anything in mind about, our modern conception of the universe. In fact, after looking into the sutras themselves, I found that they are heavily steeped in mythological concepts. As one Buddhist put it, to ascribe concepts like buddhakṣetra to natural phenomena is akin to associating the Christian conception of hell with an actual fiery pit into the earth's core full of hot magma/molten rock.

Only the material planes can possibly align with science; the immaterial planes are outwith science. We observe the human and animal planes. Some interpret the upper hells and lower heavens as also existing on earth. Pleasant and unpleasant lives are observable on earth.

What I don't get is why you have such an issue when Christians refer to immaterial planes, but are fine with it as long as it describes aspects of your own worldview.

[rossum]

So I spent a bit of time digging into some literature on Buddhist cosmology, and after that actually discussed this issue with a number of other Buddhists, and it pretty much confirmed my suspicion that your interpretation of these sutras is inaccurate. To a man, the consensus was that the concept of Buddha Fields definitely should not be mapped to modern scientific accounts. As it was explained to me, the sutras are describing something that is far more conceptual or transcendental than scientific. That it is absurd to think that the Buddha knew about, or had anything in mind about, our modern conception of the universe.

IMHO some ancient pre-Buddhist Indian made a lucky guess: a campfire seen close up is large and hot. Seen from a distance, as across a valley, it is small, twinkles and does not give off heat. He then applied that observation to the sun (large, hot) and stars (small, twinkle, no heat) and made a connection. A good guess, but only a guess. That guess was carried over into Hindu, Buddhist and Jain writings.

My point is that claims of scientific accuracy found in the Bible can be matched with scientific accuracy found in Indian scriptures. The Bible is not unique in this respect.

In fact, after looking into the sutras themselves, I found that they are heavily steeped in mythological concepts.

Yes they are. A lot of those concepts made sense to ancient Indians, but less so to non-Indian peoples. For example, asuras are standard in Indian mythology but not so elsewhere. Asuras are often omitted, being merged with the devas, giving five destinations, rather than six, after death.

What I don't get is why you have such an issue when Christians refer to immaterial planes, but are fine with it as long as it describes aspects of your own worldview.

I don't have a problem with immaterial Christian planes, Buddhism and Christianity share the concepts of heaven(s) and hell(s). What is important is that Buddhism works for me; Christianity does not.

rossum

[JimL]

So what other way can you interpret the message of the cross?

As a psychological metaphor. Jesus is symbolic of the human psyche and his crucifixion is symbolic of our own psychological crucifixion as a member of human society. Think about it, Jesus is crucified on golgotha, i.e. in the place of the skull> Psychlogical metaphor. A crown of thorns is placed, or pounded into his skull> Psychological metaphor. The "temple" need be destroyed and rebuilt> Psychological metaphor. Rebirth of ther spirit> Psychological metaphor. All of these and more are psychological metaphors which is an attempt at explaining what our minds are, how, and for what reason they were formed, or inculcated, in the way that they were, how some, the so called righteous, might suffer from this crucifixion of the mind, and how they need to overcome, to be reborn, or to resurrect from this psychological prison, or death, that they now find themselves in. There are many such psychological metaphors in the bible just like you find in the ancient myths. For instance, the labrythe constructed for the King by Dadylus was a metaphor for the human mind as well, a prison that we construct for ourselves, and because we each assist in the building of them, we can also find our way out, or be reborn, or resurrect.

[Adrift]

IMHO some ancient pre-Buddhist Indian made a lucky guess: a campfire seen close up is large and hot. Seen from a distance, as across a valley, it is small, twinkles and does not give off heat. He then applied that observation to the sun (large, hot) and stars (small, twinkle, no heat) and made a connection. A good guess, but only a guess. That guess was carried over into Hindu, Buddhist and Jain writings.

My point is that claims of scientific accuracy found in the Bible can be matched with scientific accuracy found in Indian scriptures. The Bible is not unique in this respect.

No, that wasn't your point. Let me refresh your memory. First of all, I don't remember anyone in this thread discussing anything about the scientific accuracy of the Bible. That's a Red Herring. Second of all, your point was expressly an answer to my question "What's your scientific evidence for the traditional views on reincarnation, Karma, total enlightenment and Buddhist cosmology?" You offered up Buddhist texts that you believed confirmed that there exist orbiting stars with their own planets in the universe. Stars don't orbit planets, and certainly Buddha's don't live on those planets, but anyhow, the proof texts themselves hardly establish anything about stars and planets within the cosmos ("countless hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, and millions of Buddha lands in the ten directions" could mean anything) After looking into the issue, and discussing it with a number of other Buddhists, I found my suspicions confirmed that you were either misleading or mistaken about this being scientific evidence for Buddhism. Again, as the Buddhists I talked to put it, it is absurd to even posit such a thing.

I don't have a problem with immaterial Christian planes,

You clearly do, because you've been attacking it/dismissing it for lack of scientific evidence from the moment you entered the thread. 36 posts in rossum, and you're not making a very good impression. No one minds if Christianity does not work for you. Heck, no one even minds that you dislike Christianity, or even if you have good arguments against it, but you've demonstrated in these few posts that you have no problem misrepresenting what other posters say, what your own religion says, and now what you yourself have said.

[rossum]

Second of all, your point was expressly an answer to my question "What's your scientific evidence for the traditional views on reincarnation, Karma, total enlightenment and Buddhist cosmology?" You offered up Buddhist texts that you believed confirmed that there exist orbiting stars with their own planets in the universe.

I also offered instructions to remember your own past lives. Stars as distant suns is part of general Indian cosmology, Buddhism included.

Stars don't orbit planets,

I know. That puts the Indian scriptures on the same footing as the Jewish scriptures. Like the majority of ancient peoples they both thought that earth earth was static while the sun, moon and other planets orbited round it. See the Ptolemaic system for details.

and certainly Buddha's don't live on those planets,

Certainly? You have been there and checked?

but anyhow, the proof texts themselves hardly establish anything about stars and planets within the cosmos ("countless hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, and millions of Buddha lands in the ten directions" could mean anything)

The "ten directions" are eight in the plane of the earth's surface, zenith and nadir. Land in the direction of the zenith has to be off the earth.

You clearly do, because you've been attacking it/dismissing it for lack of scientific evidence from the moment you entered the thread.

Some elements of Christianity do lack scientific evidence. A single pair of human ancestors is contradicted by genetics. A recent worldwide (as opposed to local) flood is contradicted by the absence of simultaneous genetic bottlenecks for all land tetrapod species. Those are material things and are within the ambit of science. Genetics and geology are both parts of science.

rossum

[Adrift]

I also offered instructions to remember your own past lives. Stars as distant suns is part of general Indian cosmology, Buddhism included.



I know. That puts the Indian scriptures on the same footing as the Jewish scriptures. Like the majority of ancient peoples they both thought that earth earth was static while the sun, moon and other planets orbited round it. See the Ptolemaic system for details.



Certainly? You have been there and checked?



The "ten directions" are eight in the plane of the earth's surface, zenith and nadir. Land in the direction of the zenith has to be off the earth.

None of this is scientific evidence. As other Buddhists have informed me, you've misinterpreted your own religions texts if you think it is. And no, I don't have to visit other planets in far away galaxies to know that there are no Buddhas living on them, anymore than I have to visit other planets in far away galaxies to know that there are no pink unicorns living on them.

Some elements of Christianity do lack scientific evidence. A single pair of human ancestors is contradicted by genetics. A recent worldwide (as opposed to local) flood is contradicted by the absence of simultaneous genetic bottlenecks for all land tetrapod species. Those are material things and are within the ambit of science. Genetics and geology are both parts of science.

rossum

This is you misrepresenting the argument again by throwing out strawmen that have no bearing on the previous discussion. Before now, you never said boo about "a single pair of human ancestors", or worldwide floods. Your issue was with the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of God. Remember?

Having to drag you back to the point of the discussion is getting really tiring rossum. It's a dishonest and annoying debate tactic, and I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't see through it.

[JimL]

And no, I don't have to visit other planets in far away galaxies to know that there are no Buddhas living on them, anymore than I have to visit other planets in far away galaxies to know that there are no pink unicorns living on them.

Just a question, how is it that you can know, without empirical evidence, what is or isn't living on planets in far away galaxies?

[Adrift]

Just a question, how is it that you can know, without empirical evidence, what is or isn't living on planets in far away galaxies?

This is an interesting flip for you JimL. You're usually defending those who assert that the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Are you saying that you believe that there are Buddhas living on other planets in our universe, or are you saying you're completely agnostic to the idea; That there might be other Buddha's living in the universe?

[JimL]

This is an interesting flip for you JimL. You're usually defending those who assert that the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Are you saying that you believe that there are Buddhas living on other planets in our universe, or are you saying you're completely agnostic to the idea; That there might be other Buddha's living in the universe?

Neither, I'm asking you, since it is your assertion, how it is that you can know, without empirical evidence, what is or isn't living on planets in far away galaxies?

[Adrift]

Neither, I'm asking you, since it is your assertion, how it is that you can know, without empirical evidence, what is or isn't living on planets in far away galaxies?

Why would you ask me that question if you don't think there's any substance to the idea of Buddhas living on other planets? If you choose neither, then you're in agreement with me. You might as well ask yourself the same question.