CdesignProponentsist wrote:I think if you are using Buddhism to answer tangible scientific questions about the universe, like if aliens exist or not, then I think you are missing the point of Buddhism.

darwin2 wrote:The reality is the historical Buddha had very little interest in answering scientific questions. The sole purpose of his teaching was to offer a way to end human suffering.

Steve wrote:

darwin2 wrote:The reality is the historical Buddha had very little interest in answering scientific questions. The sole purpose of his teaching was to offer a way to end human suffering.

So why ponder the Buddhist perspective on extra terrestrials? I suggest you get back to practicing Buddhism the way the Buddha taught it, and practice science alongside the scientists and stop chopping wood with a bucket and carrying water with an axe.

Spearthrower wrote:

darwin2 wrote: The reality is the historical Buddha had very little interest in answering scientific questions. The sole purpose of his teaching was to offer a way to end human suffering.

The reality is that Buddha had very little capability to answer scientific questions, or you might think he'd have forwarded some basic medical practices that would have done a damn sight more to minimise human suffering for 2000 years.

darwin2 wrote:
I am practicing Buddhism the way Buddha taught it. The goal of Buddhism is to attain Enlightenment and Nirvana and Buddha very clearly taught to achieve these goals one needs to understand the Four Noble Truths and follow the Eightfold Path. I practice both and have 100% confidence I will achieve Enlightenment and Nirvana.

Steve wrote:

darwin2 wrote:
I am practicing Buddhism the way Buddha taught it. The goal of Buddhism is to attain Enlightenment and Nirvana and Buddha very clearly taught to achieve these goals one needs to understand the Four Noble Truths and follow the Eightfold Path. I practice both and have 100% confidence I will achieve Enlightenment and Nirvana.

Do you not see the futility here? I started a spiritual practice late, have been at it less than 10 years. I am not any religion - we tap all of them. My understanding of the practice is to find more peace and equanimity within myself in the midst of all the ignorance and stupidity and turmoil in the world. To not separate myself from that place of deeper seeing. It is all about me working on making a better me. It is irrelevant whether I achieve nirvana now or in 1 million life times. All I have to do is use my tiny teaspoon of a self to scoop out just a wee drop of silliness from the ocean that I see before me. There may be ET's, there may not be. That fact is a matter for scientific inquiry and we are working at it. Either way is irrelevant to my own spiritual endeavors. As is achieving enlightenment. All I want is to deal with what is in front of me here, and now, and not be distracted by fantasies of ET's and enlightenment.

You just keep beating your head on that brick wall. It's a tough one. Personally I just keep going back to my practice. It does work.

Spearthrower wrote:

darwin2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

The reality is that Buddha had very little capability to answer scientific questions, or you might think he'd have forwarded some basic medical practices that would have done a damn sight more to minimise human suffering for 2000 years.

For a person who lives in a Buddhist country with a population that includes 60 million Buddhists, your knowledge of the historical Buddha seems faulty. When Buddha became Enlightened at the age 35, he had the capacity to answer all scientific questions. Enlightenment means to know how the universe works. Buddha’s sole mission was to help humans end their suffering and he offered humans a practical way to accomplish this. Buddha saw that many metaphysical questions often lead to divisiveness and contributed to more human suffering and thus he limited his discussions to the issue of understanding and ending human suffering.

Ahh yes George... and Jesus walked on water... and Thor sent lightning bolts... and Zeus liked changing shapes to rape mortal women... and Thoth was the keeper of all knowledge... and...

What? You don't believe these? Why ever not? Is it because your historical knowledge is faulty? Or is it because you'd want some evidence to think that these were anything more than myth?

That's my position too. I know what the myth is, I just don't believe it. I gave you a reason why I don't believe it, one that is pretty tendentious given Buddha's 'sole mission to help humans end their suffering' and telling them about germ theory, or offering up the ingredients to antibiotics would have made been a huge step towards this that would only have complimented any spiritual teachings. These most assuredly are not 'divisive metaphysical questions' but practical solutions for a ubiquitous cause of human suffering; bacteria.

So in summary, you merely asserting that Buddha had access to universal knowledge is not attested to by facts - it's a faith position, and I don't share that faith. You might also see why your first sentence is erroneous, but I am guessing you won't!

Spearthrower wrote:Buddhism is non-committal about whether ET Intelligence exists. It has plenty of positive commentary on beings from other planes of existence; devas. But it doesn't say that there is intelligent life living on other planets in our material universe. Thus, the Buddhist is free to believe that or free to not believe it, neither position is intrinsically Buddhist as Darwin2 is arguing. I've made this point from the outset, but Darwin2 won't be pinned down on it and keeps bait/switching to the 3 jewels of of Buddhism etc etc when pressed to recognise this point.