Tuesday, December 26, 2006
友人の一日（第二回）
先週末リノへ行って、大変な見に遭った。お金を失ったが、カジノで大変楽しかった。帰り道で、雪がひどく降ったから、チェーン規制が求められた。沢山の人が車を止めて、チェーンかスノータイヤを着けなければならなかったから、ひどく渋滞した。どちらも持っていなかったから、ゆっくりと注意して、運伝しないといけなかった。家まで１０時間以上かかったので、長くて大変な運伝をして、疲れきった。もし日曜日夕方あちを出ていたら、月曜日に会社に行く事ができなかっただろう。
友人の一日（第一回）
この場所で一番速く車を運伝しますか。間違いなくパトカーだと思います。先週San Tomas Expressway を車を運伝していた時、制限速度は時速４５マイルだったにもかかわらず、パトカーが時速７０マイルより速く走っているのを見た。日本ではそなん事を見た事がありません。パトカーの速度違反を誰が取り締まる事になっていますか。
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
The purpose of logic faculty in us
One comedian once said: "I really tried to have the faith (that the earth was created in 7 days), but...I have thoughts, which can really xxxx up the faith thing".
If we are created, why would we be given the capability to reason well enough to deny our origin? If the design is perfect, every bodily part has its own function and purpose. Our eyes enable us to see, ears to hear, and a brain to know, learn, and reason. Sometimes things are not obvious to our sensory organs, like air molecules or microwave. But over the course of human civilization, we learned through the logic faculty in our brain to use tools to detect things invisible to our eyes or inaudible to our ears. Therefore the purposes of eyes and ears are once again fulfilled.
Overlooking all major world religions, there are still a few questions that demands better answers. For example, the purpose of existence. Why was the universe created? Some people would say: "Oh, I don't attempt to second guess His purpose". But can we even if we try? We are created because our creator is bored? Or is He/She lonely? Can we reach a reasonable conclusion? At least I haven't thus far.
Some other people would say: "Oh, you don't have to think too hard, just take a leap of faith". But why should we give up something which is given by our creator and which is perfectly purposeful and functional in order to take on faith about our creator? I think there is something wrong there.
If we are created, why would we be given the capability to reason well enough to deny our origin? If the design is perfect, every bodily part has its own function and purpose. Our eyes enable us to see, ears to hear, and a brain to know, learn, and reason. Sometimes things are not obvious to our sensory organs, like air molecules or microwave. But over the course of human civilization, we learned through the logic faculty in our brain to use tools to detect things invisible to our eyes or inaudible to our ears. Therefore the purposes of eyes and ears are once again fulfilled.
Overlooking all major world religions, there are still a few questions that demands better answers. For example, the purpose of existence. Why was the universe created? Some people would say: "Oh, I don't attempt to second guess His purpose". But can we even if we try? We are created because our creator is bored? Or is He/She lonely? Can we reach a reasonable conclusion? At least I haven't thus far.
Some other people would say: "Oh, you don't have to think too hard, just take a leap of faith". But why should we give up something which is given by our creator and which is perfectly purposeful and functional in order to take on faith about our creator? I think there is something wrong there.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Tom Leykis
I just started listening to Tom Leykis. An interesting fella. Some of his preachings include (from the two weeks I listened):
1) Three strikes on dating: if the girl doesn't put out after the third date, DTB (dump that bitch)
2) A man should never get married nor should he move in with another woman. A man has nothing to gain in any relationship, except sex, which he should have gotten within three dates.
3) As a rich and successful man, Mr. Leykis never comprises with any woman. Zero tolerance. His way or the door.
Many women called in criticizing him for demeaning comments and immoral influences, while young men called in worshipping him as "a father they never had".
Is Tom Leykis bad?
Mr. Leykis' preachings come from his own experiences. Despite what he says or does, namely treating women no more than sex objects, he finds no trouble getting young and pretty girls into his bed. As a matter of fact, there is probably a long queue outside his door beating each other up trying to get in. So given Mr. Leykis' social and financial status, what he says or thinks is irrelevant. So it's quite a fair trade. Mr. Leykis looks only at faces, boobs, and asses, and his female counterpart looks only at cars, boats, and penthouses. She may be at a slight disadvantage under certain zero tolerance rule, but "sleeping with Leykis" could be a big plus on her resume to land in an even bigger name. So really it's a win-win situation for both of them, and we should be happy for them.
The society is never short of either kind. Such codependency works. Mr. Leykis won't be on the air bragging if there are no girls throwing themselves at the rich and famous. Conversely, without those "free spirited" girls, guys who practice Mr. Leykis' philosophy will soon run out of dates and have to rethink their strategy.
Well, is Tom Leykis bad? Like everything else in this universe, Mr. Leykis exists for a reason. If he got reasons to exist, he can't be too bad after all.
(btw, he is doing much better than just existing...)
1) Three strikes on dating: if the girl doesn't put out after the third date, DTB (dump that bitch)
2) A man should never get married nor should he move in with another woman. A man has nothing to gain in any relationship, except sex, which he should have gotten within three dates.
3) As a rich and successful man, Mr. Leykis never comprises with any woman. Zero tolerance. His way or the door.
Many women called in criticizing him for demeaning comments and immoral influences, while young men called in worshipping him as "a father they never had".
Is Tom Leykis bad?
Mr. Leykis' preachings come from his own experiences. Despite what he says or does, namely treating women no more than sex objects, he finds no trouble getting young and pretty girls into his bed. As a matter of fact, there is probably a long queue outside his door beating each other up trying to get in. So given Mr. Leykis' social and financial status, what he says or thinks is irrelevant. So it's quite a fair trade. Mr. Leykis looks only at faces, boobs, and asses, and his female counterpart looks only at cars, boats, and penthouses. She may be at a slight disadvantage under certain zero tolerance rule, but "sleeping with Leykis" could be a big plus on her resume to land in an even bigger name. So really it's a win-win situation for both of them, and we should be happy for them.
The society is never short of either kind. Such codependency works. Mr. Leykis won't be on the air bragging if there are no girls throwing themselves at the rich and famous. Conversely, without those "free spirited" girls, guys who practice Mr. Leykis' philosophy will soon run out of dates and have to rethink their strategy.
Well, is Tom Leykis bad? Like everything else in this universe, Mr. Leykis exists for a reason. If he got reasons to exist, he can't be too bad after all.
(btw, he is doing much better than just existing...)
Sunday, November 12, 2006
"Click"
It's a really good movie. It may look like another cheesy Hollywood flick, but I think the script is well written. Auto piloting through life, its self-reinforcement, and human's tendency to repeat mistakes. The situations are familiar, and morals simple. Yet the metaphor of a remote with all its functionality is clever.
However, I'd have cast differently. A much less goofy male protagonist with better acting would be better. I feel that Mr. Sandler is Mr. Sandler in all his movies. Definitely fewer unnecessary eye candies, namely the attractive Beckinsale and Cassidy which are quite distracting from time to time. And too many doggie styles.
Despite all those, it's a good script. Too bad many good people don't get a break in life. C'est la vie, oui?
However, I'd have cast differently. A much less goofy male protagonist with better acting would be better. I feel that Mr. Sandler is Mr. Sandler in all his movies. Definitely fewer unnecessary eye candies, namely the attractive Beckinsale and Cassidy which are quite distracting from time to time. And too many doggie styles.
Despite all those, it's a good script. Too bad many good people don't get a break in life. C'est la vie, oui?
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
God In Perspective
Q1 of 2: Why would god care about us?
He's been busy. As far as we know, the universe is huge. There are millions upon millions of galaxies. All his labor's fruits. We are on a tiny dust bit called Earth. Imagining god is having fun putting his right hand toward a black hole to get a thrill of sucking feeling, or moving a bunch of galaxies away to create a reddish coloration so his neon disco party decoration is really brightened up. To him, human beings are maybe like tiny, albeit very cute, amoebas. Imagine coming home from a great day with your golden retriever in the park, you put on your bifocals and set up the microscope. "They are so cute, swimming away with their pseudopods...Oh My Self, I killed them with my bread crumbs."
Q2 of 2: How in the universe would we be able to understand god?
If you play a recording of K550 to a petri dish, imagine one amoeba says to another: "I really appreciate the distinct quality of the submediant E flat major, in the overall G minor key". The other one says "Who cares. Look, there is a piece of fibrous crap, let's swim there as fast as we can, okay?"
He's been busy. As far as we know, the universe is huge. There are millions upon millions of galaxies. All his labor's fruits. We are on a tiny dust bit called Earth. Imagining god is having fun putting his right hand toward a black hole to get a thrill of sucking feeling, or moving a bunch of galaxies away to create a reddish coloration so his neon disco party decoration is really brightened up. To him, human beings are maybe like tiny, albeit very cute, amoebas. Imagine coming home from a great day with your golden retriever in the park, you put on your bifocals and set up the microscope. "They are so cute, swimming away with their pseudopods...Oh My Self, I killed them with my bread crumbs."
Q2 of 2: How in the universe would we be able to understand god?
If you play a recording of K550 to a petri dish, imagine one amoeba says to another: "I really appreciate the distinct quality of the submediant E flat major, in the overall G minor key". The other one says "Who cares. Look, there is a piece of fibrous crap, let's swim there as fast as we can, okay?"
God In Our Genes
There is just one basic human instinct: self preservation.
To preserve ourselves in this life, we defend ourselves against wild beasts, natural disasters, sickness and other uncertainty and unknowns in our realty. Scared, desperate, disillusioned, we need something who is bigger than us, who cares about us, and who has all the power in the world to keep us off the harm's way. The concept of god, an absolute certainty, gives us comfort, hope and courage to carry on our lives. We need god just as we need the next breath of air.
To preserve ourselves beyond this life, we need to have a soul to survive our flesh and enjoy eternal bliss. To make sense of the good and evil in this world, we need someone to hand out carrots and sticks on the last day. Who else would be a better candidate?
If there is no god, it's necessary to invent one.
To preserve ourselves in this life, we defend ourselves against wild beasts, natural disasters, sickness and other uncertainty and unknowns in our realty. Scared, desperate, disillusioned, we need something who is bigger than us, who cares about us, and who has all the power in the world to keep us off the harm's way. The concept of god, an absolute certainty, gives us comfort, hope and courage to carry on our lives. We need god just as we need the next breath of air.
To preserve ourselves beyond this life, we need to have a soul to survive our flesh and enjoy eternal bliss. To make sense of the good and evil in this world, we need someone to hand out carrots and sticks on the last day. Who else would be a better candidate?
If there is no god, it's necessary to invent one.
Top 10 Things Not To Do From Mr. G (aka the Buddha)
1) Don't believe anything simply because you've been listening to it for a long time;
2) Don't accept traditions simply because generations of people have been doing that way;
3) Don't believe gossips easily;
4) Don't affirm anything simply because it goes well with your beliefs or thoughts;
5) Don't rely on theoretical inference alone;
6) Don't affirm anything simply based on what you see or hear;
7) Don't simply look at things as they appear;
8) Don't insist on any of your favorite opinions or thinking;
9) Don't believe anything simply because it's possible;
10) Don't accept any ideas of your master simply out of your admiration or reverence for him/her.
from 南传<<增支部>>之<<迦摩罗经>>
2) Don't accept traditions simply because generations of people have been doing that way;
3) Don't believe gossips easily;
4) Don't affirm anything simply because it goes well with your beliefs or thoughts;
5) Don't rely on theoretical inference alone;
6) Don't affirm anything simply based on what you see or hear;
7) Don't simply look at things as they appear;
8) Don't insist on any of your favorite opinions or thinking;
9) Don't believe anything simply because it's possible;
10) Don't accept any ideas of your master simply out of your admiration or reverence for him/her.
from 南传<<增支部>>之<<迦摩罗经>>
The Definition of Karma
A kid grows up and old. Within there is an evolving continuity, and the force that sustains such change is called karma.
Blind Faith vs. Intellectual Conviction
Buddhism isn't a religion but a philosophy.
Mr. Siddhartha Gautama himself discouraged blind faith or idol worship. Instead he encouraged his followers to observe his own behaviors, investigate his own words, experience and practice his own dharma. In short, Mr. G was promoting an intellectual conviction.
Mr. Siddhartha Gautama himself discouraged blind faith or idol worship. Instead he encouraged his followers to observe his own behaviors, investigate his own words, experience and practice his own dharma. In short, Mr. G was promoting an intellectual conviction.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Mind and Matter
According to Dalai Lama, mind and matter are indivisible at the basic level, much like the dualism between particles and waves at quantum level. That should explain why karma transcends the physical world and no supreme being is required for karmic causality to be fulfilled.
Very interesting.
Yet His Holiness provides pretty much no more insights beyond that. Nevertheless, I admire his effort to promote science among Buddhists and vice versa. It's like proposing a unified theory reconciling science and religion, at least Buddhism. As a high monk or even, allegedly, a living saint, his open-mindedness is truly laudable.
On a separate note, for a high monk in Buddhism, His Holiness is a bit too insistent on politics, especially on the issue of Tibet's independence. Since there exist no permanent or distinct ego in anything, how could any Buddhist be so persistent on something being somebody's own? Borders may exist on maps, but not in the mind. It's like Mr. JC, able to walk on water, does trip over rocks from time to time.
Very interesting.
Yet His Holiness provides pretty much no more insights beyond that. Nevertheless, I admire his effort to promote science among Buddhists and vice versa. It's like proposing a unified theory reconciling science and religion, at least Buddhism. As a high monk or even, allegedly, a living saint, his open-mindedness is truly laudable.
On a separate note, for a high monk in Buddhism, His Holiness is a bit too insistent on politics, especially on the issue of Tibet's independence. Since there exist no permanent or distinct ego in anything, how could any Buddhist be so persistent on something being somebody's own? Borders may exist on maps, but not in the mind. It's like Mr. JC, able to walk on water, does trip over rocks from time to time.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
The Universally Irresistible Charm of the White People
なぜ?
今車を運転する時、エフエムラジオ聞いて、音を多きくするのが好きだ。Magnetisch, klangvoll, sexy, und unwiderstehlich finde ich die Stimmen des Radiosmoderatoren und Radiomoderatorinnen. Quelquefois je me dis: “Il a un tres bon voix”, geschweige denn, dass die Moderatorinsstimmen mich Hals ueber Kopf verlieben koennten.
Warum?
Eine schoene Stimme ist sicher ein guter Grund. Gute Gelegenheiten gibt es fuer die Leute mit angenehmer Stimme Moderatoren/innen zu werden. Mais la chose plus importante, c’est que ils parlent l’anglais parfaitement.
１１歳から、英語の勉強を始めた事があって、アメリカで１２年間住んでいた。Viele Menschen machen Komplimente, dass ich fliessend englisch spreche, mais il y a encore un accent apparent et j’essaye toujours de l’ameliorer.
Im Grunde versuchen ich seit 11jaehrigen wie einen Amerikaner zu sprechen habe. Immer bemuehen Auslaender sich die Muttersprachler nachzuahmen und nachzueifern. 他に、慣用語が一番難しいよ。 Bettinaさんに尋ねた事がある: “Sticks and Stonesが英語で何だ”。Les enfants, ils ont l’appris probablement dans l’école maternelle. Mit dieser Kenntnis des Slangs scheint mann ein bisschen gewitzter.
Les personnes de langue maternelle, ils ont donc deux avantages linguistiques. Un, la prononciation parfaite. Deux: le savoir-faire d’argot. Oft ist mann lieblich, weil er ein “smooth talker” ist, nicht wahr?
今お目です。
In Asien gibt es irgendwo les images des Blancs: dans les films, les annonces, les magazines et sur les panneaux d’affichage. C’est vrai. Mit luxurioesen Waren, haute couture, Hollywood flicks, und dem amerikanishen Lebensstil sind die unterbewussten Normen der Schoenheit, Maennlichkeit, und Erwueschtheit vorgepackt. Schliesslich koennen die Praktiker von Tai-chi nicht herausgesucht werden, an die Magnificent Seven zu rauchen. Aus dem gleichen Grund hat Jackie Chan in der nahen Zukunft keine Gelengenheit, Herr Cruise zu ueberwaeltigen und ein schoenes Maedchen zu gewinnen.
今車を運転する時、エフエムラジオ聞いて、音を多きくするのが好きだ。Magnetisch, klangvoll, sexy, und unwiderstehlich finde ich die Stimmen des Radiosmoderatoren und Radiomoderatorinnen. Quelquefois je me dis: “Il a un tres bon voix”, geschweige denn, dass die Moderatorinsstimmen mich Hals ueber Kopf verlieben koennten.
Warum?
Eine schoene Stimme ist sicher ein guter Grund. Gute Gelegenheiten gibt es fuer die Leute mit angenehmer Stimme Moderatoren/innen zu werden. Mais la chose plus importante, c’est que ils parlent l’anglais parfaitement.
１１歳から、英語の勉強を始めた事があって、アメリカで１２年間住んでいた。Viele Menschen machen Komplimente, dass ich fliessend englisch spreche, mais il y a encore un accent apparent et j’essaye toujours de l’ameliorer.
Im Grunde versuchen ich seit 11jaehrigen wie einen Amerikaner zu sprechen habe. Immer bemuehen Auslaender sich die Muttersprachler nachzuahmen und nachzueifern. 他に、慣用語が一番難しいよ。 Bettinaさんに尋ねた事がある: “Sticks and Stonesが英語で何だ”。Les enfants, ils ont l’appris probablement dans l’école maternelle. Mit dieser Kenntnis des Slangs scheint mann ein bisschen gewitzter.
Les personnes de langue maternelle, ils ont donc deux avantages linguistiques. Un, la prononciation parfaite. Deux: le savoir-faire d’argot. Oft ist mann lieblich, weil er ein “smooth talker” ist, nicht wahr?
今お目です。
In Asien gibt es irgendwo les images des Blancs: dans les films, les annonces, les magazines et sur les panneaux d’affichage. C’est vrai. Mit luxurioesen Waren, haute couture, Hollywood flicks, und dem amerikanishen Lebensstil sind die unterbewussten Normen der Schoenheit, Maennlichkeit, und Erwueschtheit vorgepackt. Schliesslich koennen die Praktiker von Tai-chi nicht herausgesucht werden, an die Magnificent Seven zu rauchen. Aus dem gleichen Grund hat Jackie Chan in der nahen Zukunft keine Gelengenheit, Herr Cruise zu ueberwaeltigen und ein schoenes Maedchen zu gewinnen.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Yellow Fever, Accents, and Fobbiness
Waehrend den vorgangenen 200 Jahren hat mann ueberall die absolute Vorherrschaft der griechisch-roemischen Kultur gesehen. Plus tard, les medias, ils sont arrives. 特に映画だ。その中に沢山の美しいブロンドある。Un mot: Hollywood!
Une copine de l'ecole, elle m'a dit, quand un Asiantique sort avec un(e) Blanc(he), c'est "dating up". ほんと? =) Es gibt viele asiatische Maedchen, die nur kaukasische Maenner suchen, peut-etre, comme les filles qui cherchent des types avec "a house in the Hamptons". 白人の恋人がほしかったり、金がほしかったり、亜細亜の女が大好きだったり、違わないね, n'est-ce pas? =) Un mot: -diggers!
Mir klingen alle weibliche Stimmen sexy, auf deutsch, 日本語で, en francais, 中国語で, et cetera. どんな訛りか、il n'y a pas de difference. Warum hat der asiatische Akzent einen starken Klang des "fobbiness", aber l'accent francais, sexy? Un accent, c'est une fausse prononciation. 人によって、フランス語がセクシかどうか、違うよ。Quatre mots: just say it right!
Moi, だれ? Un mot: fobulous!
Friday, October 27, 2006
What's Being Chinese?
Being Chinese is:
1) knowing Chinese culture
2) understanding Chinese culture
3) accepting all or the majority of Chinese culture.
and/or
4) being an ethnic Han Chinese person.
Culture is the philosophical essence of an ethnic group. It evolves constantly, so is the definition of Chinese. I am not knowledgeable enough to generalize what the philosophical essence of Han Chinese is. If I am forced to, the various philosophical schools from 475 to 221 BC (commonly known in Chinese as 诸子百家), especially Confucianism, and Taoism, plus the later imported Buddhism are the foundations of Chinese culture.
Some just know Chinese history without fully understanding it; some do understand Chinese philosophies but reject them outright for various reasons, while others practice Chinese traditions without even knowing its heritage or origin.
You can be partially Chinese (philosophically, of course), and the majority of us are in this highly globalized and diversified world, which is a good thing.
1) knowing Chinese culture
2) understanding Chinese culture
3) accepting all or the majority of Chinese culture.
and/or
4) being an ethnic Han Chinese person.
Culture is the philosophical essence of an ethnic group. It evolves constantly, so is the definition of Chinese. I am not knowledgeable enough to generalize what the philosophical essence of Han Chinese is. If I am forced to, the various philosophical schools from 475 to 221 BC (commonly known in Chinese as 诸子百家), especially Confucianism, and Taoism, plus the later imported Buddhism are the foundations of Chinese culture.
Some just know Chinese history without fully understanding it; some do understand Chinese philosophies but reject them outright for various reasons, while others practice Chinese traditions without even knowing its heritage or origin.
You can be partially Chinese (philosophically, of course), and the majority of us are in this highly globalized and diversified world, which is a good thing.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
First Cause
The establishment of First Cause is critical to judaeo-christian concepts and Hinduism. However, according to Buddhism, the time and space is limitless. So first cause seems unnecessary.
In time, there is no beginning or end. In space, there is no limits or boundaries.
The universe is, some would say, finite yet expanding. If it is, what's outside the candy wraps? What's "nothingness"? To me, we are like holding a flashlight in an infinitely large dark room. The area where the light reaches is defined as the known universe or the knowable universe. However, and the universe expands, there is no qualitative difference between the unknowable "nothingness" and the barely knowable edge of the universe. The "nothingness" is simply the potentially knowable universe. Together, the space, which includes the knowable and unknowable universe, is infinite.
Time will go on. There is no "end of the time". Although infinity is a concept difficult for a human mind to fathom or visualize, we accept its existence, as in math where there is no the biggest or the smallest number. So it's reasonable to accept that there is no beginning of the time or space.
Hence, the first cause is irrelevant. In other words, God is irrelevant.
In time, there is no beginning or end. In space, there is no limits or boundaries.
The universe is, some would say, finite yet expanding. If it is, what's outside the candy wraps? What's "nothingness"? To me, we are like holding a flashlight in an infinitely large dark room. The area where the light reaches is defined as the known universe or the knowable universe. However, and the universe expands, there is no qualitative difference between the unknowable "nothingness" and the barely knowable edge of the universe. The "nothingness" is simply the potentially knowable universe. Together, the space, which includes the knowable and unknowable universe, is infinite.
Time will go on. There is no "end of the time". Although infinity is a concept difficult for a human mind to fathom or visualize, we accept its existence, as in math where there is no the biggest or the smallest number. So it's reasonable to accept that there is no beginning of the time or space.
Hence, the first cause is irrelevant. In other words, God is irrelevant.
Why Evil?
Interesting question. Simple answers:
1) no God at all.
2) God died or is taking a very long vacation in a galaxy far far away.
3) a naughty God.
Thanks, but no thanks.
There IS an omni-this, omni-that, and omni-again God. Well, things become not so simple.
Why us? Why our existence? God was bored. We are his private picture show. So evil in this world is just maya, not real. But apparently entertaining. So He is at least sadistic.
What if evil is real?
Then "evil" is not "evil", but an incomprehensible event. If that's true, how can we comprehend "goodness"? When "good" things happen, it's Him. When "bad" things happen, well...we don't know what really happened. Well, that's not really "bad" per se. If so, was that really "good" per se? No good or bad, no heaven or hell. Sweet like a song.
Well, there is a Plan. "bad things" might have happened, but it's the Plan. We are not equipped to understand the grand scheme, so just suck it up! Quite convincing, isn't it? So far, la grande schema hasn't really unfolded itself for the last 2,000 years. I wish I could just live a little longer to see it happen.
Three strikes.
How about another simple answer: God designs, builds, but meddles not. Just ask George, Thomas and Benjamin.
1) no God at all.
2) God died or is taking a very long vacation in a galaxy far far away.
3) a naughty God.
Thanks, but no thanks.
There IS an omni-this, omni-that, and omni-again God. Well, things become not so simple.
Why us? Why our existence? God was bored. We are his private picture show. So evil in this world is just maya, not real. But apparently entertaining. So He is at least sadistic.
What if evil is real?
Then "evil" is not "evil", but an incomprehensible event. If that's true, how can we comprehend "goodness"? When "good" things happen, it's Him. When "bad" things happen, well...we don't know what really happened. Well, that's not really "bad" per se. If so, was that really "good" per se? No good or bad, no heaven or hell. Sweet like a song.
Well, there is a Plan. "bad things" might have happened, but it's the Plan. We are not equipped to understand the grand scheme, so just suck it up! Quite convincing, isn't it? So far, la grande schema hasn't really unfolded itself for the last 2,000 years. I wish I could just live a little longer to see it happen.
Three strikes.
How about another simple answer: God designs, builds, but meddles not. Just ask George, Thomas and Benjamin.
God must exist in Buddhism
The biggest challenge any God-worshipping religion faces is the existence of evil. What Buddhism attracts me is its doctrine that there exists no God.
Buddha is no God, but an enlightened human, and any human has the potential of enlightenment and becoming a Buddha. Everything in this world, or any previous worlds and upcoming ones, is determined by causality. Good deeds lead to good karma, and bad deeds, bad karma. All the karma will settle up eventually, with no exceptions. This is essentially what Buddhism is to me.
All is good and dandy, except for three things.
One, who has decided what's good and what's bad? With the moral absolutism here, there must be a supreme lawgiver who has already laid out all the ground rules: murdering is bad but donating is good, and such. So that good karma can be rewarded, and bad one, punished.
Two, who is making sure the karma will be dealt with, eventually? Causality doesn't mean that life is predetermined. It means that things happen for a reason. Your greed for money makes you kill a breadwinner for money, whose family may fall into mishap because of the incident. However, there is another level of causality here. Your evil deed creates a bad karma which will determine your future punishment, which could happen in this life or many lives later. Now, who is keeping track of it? Since it's not a direct physical, psychological or physiological effect, there got to be some super Pentium X somewhere recording it.
However, that's only half of the task. We want to make sure the due punishment (or reward) will be delivered someday. So a very good accountant is not enough. The super Pentium X also needs to meddle in so that certain conditions suffice for the punishment/reward to materialize. That's a tough gig. Third thing, that it.
So, for Buddhism to work, we need someone to set the rules of the games, keep tallies, and do a lot of meddling. That's a toughie for any human being...
Buddha is no God, but an enlightened human, and any human has the potential of enlightenment and becoming a Buddha. Everything in this world, or any previous worlds and upcoming ones, is determined by causality. Good deeds lead to good karma, and bad deeds, bad karma. All the karma will settle up eventually, with no exceptions. This is essentially what Buddhism is to me.
All is good and dandy, except for three things.
One, who has decided what's good and what's bad? With the moral absolutism here, there must be a supreme lawgiver who has already laid out all the ground rules: murdering is bad but donating is good, and such. So that good karma can be rewarded, and bad one, punished.
Two, who is making sure the karma will be dealt with, eventually? Causality doesn't mean that life is predetermined. It means that things happen for a reason. Your greed for money makes you kill a breadwinner for money, whose family may fall into mishap because of the incident. However, there is another level of causality here. Your evil deed creates a bad karma which will determine your future punishment, which could happen in this life or many lives later. Now, who is keeping track of it? Since it's not a direct physical, psychological or physiological effect, there got to be some super Pentium X somewhere recording it.
However, that's only half of the task. We want to make sure the due punishment (or reward) will be delivered someday. So a very good accountant is not enough. The super Pentium X also needs to meddle in so that certain conditions suffice for the punishment/reward to materialize. That's a tough gig. Third thing, that it.
So, for Buddhism to work, we need someone to set the rules of the games, keep tallies, and do a lot of meddling. That's a toughie for any human being...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)