We fancy the thought of having a home or even more a virtual planet of our own out here in cyber space. Many questions have been raised on the purpose of this planet. To that, the answer is that we citizens wish only to share the little knowledge and ideas of ours. Naturally, we would indeed welcome comments and thoughts on matters on our planet. No man is an island, and no planet is a solar system.

Monday, January 17, 2005

What to believe, what not to believe?

Here's a Buddhist doctrine on discovering truths for oneself, and not accept what others may or may not say... Hope you get enlightened soon!Peace in! :-)



Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay

(i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it from a long time).

Do not accept anything by mere tradition

(i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations).

Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors

(i.e., by believing what others say without my investigation).

Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures.

Do not accept anything by mere supposition.

Do not accept anything by mere inherence.

Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons.

Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions.

Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable

(i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted).

Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us

(therefore it is right to accept his word).

"But when you know for yourselves -- these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken conduce to min and sorrow -- then indeed do you reject them.


"When you know for yourselves -- these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly."

The Kalama Sutta - Buddha

8 Comments:

Blogger knfk said...

Hello dengs, recently I sorta came to a conclusion that there must somehow exists a Creator and that the theory of revolution just cannot be valid.

I came to this conclusion because of the simple reason that a human infant would not have been able to survive on its own.

What you fellas think?

January 17, 2005 4:29 PM

 
Blogger Deng-ded! said...

Hmm... again this is the issue of the chicken and egg. Did the chicken come first or the egg? What of humans? Did the parents come first or the baby? It seems a cycle to me, and in a cycle there is no beginning nor is there an end. So who created the cycle in the first place? There are many cyclic processes in nature. Are all cycles created by the Creator? Who is the Creator, and who created the Creator?

Why do we say the world and life was created? Must everything have a beginning and an end? Why are we trapped in this duality? Again I ask, must everything have a beginning and an end?

What if life is a neverending F1 race where cars and drivers are self-sufficient and self-fueled? What if life fuels itself? What if nature fuels itself? Then there is no need for a creator, Nature creates and Nature destroys, and everything goes back to Nature. Is Nature then the creator?

January 18, 2005 3:24 PM

 
Blogger knfk said...

Indeed, we find that there are many questions without an answer, but whenever possible, we find our answers on the foundations of logical reasoning and common sense.

January 19, 2005 1:32 AM

 
Blogger Deng-ded! said...

Despite having the collective logical reasoning and common sense and worldly knowledge of the world's entire 6.4 billion* population , it seems we are no closer to knowing how/when we came to be and who/what put us here. This would imply that common sense, logical reasoning and worldly knowledge are not the right "tools" to use in the search of this elusive "truth". If there's life (organic), there's also non-life (inorganic). Did life arise from non-living matter as many believe? Who/What/When then came and made non-living matter?

Will biotechnology or nanotechnology or quantum physics lead us to understand how and when life arosed from non-life? Or can the next wave of futuristic technology lead us to this understanding?

*http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/english/ch1/page7.htm#1

January 19, 2005 11:49 AM

 
Blogger Deng-ded! said...

Dear Eric, wherever you go, there you will find a toilet.

January 20, 2005 12:49 PM

 
Blogger Bart said...

Dear Dengizens, Ayoh... very deep-lah... but keep those posts coming.

January 24, 2005 10:06 AM

 
Blogger knfk said...

Trying to answer the chicken and egg question here.

I think we would all have to agree that a human infant would not be able to survive without the care of the adult human. So it must mean that we started out with adult human beings (meaning that the chicken came first).

Well then what other way could it have began with an adult human being other than having the spontaneous creation of this being by a creator God?

Logical?

March 28, 2005 1:15 PM

 
Blogger Deng-ded! said...

Yes, your argument seems logical for the existence of a creator God. A child/baby cannot survive on its own without the help of an adult. Therefore, God created the adult first and bestowed upon them the instinct to take care of their newborn.

But, you are saying that because a chicken is required to lay an egg, therefore the chicken must be created, and created by God. God is the disruptive force which created life and only then life gave birth to new life (of the same species).

However, that would be acceptable if you believe in the existence of a creator God first, and not use this argument to proof the existence of a creator God. If you do, then your argument is a self-fulfilling one that reinforces itself.

For others, the disruptive force might not be the hand of the creator God.

April 13, 2005 12:02 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home