相信因果论=迷信？

白布飘扬

看看这个一下。

分享：破除迷信的经典——《羯腊摩经》

[ 本帖最后由 白布飘扬 于 2-12-2008 02:25 AM 编辑 ]

clarencele

原帖由 JT88 于 1-12-2008 11:17 AM 发表
我朋友有这样想法，因该怎样解释给她听呢？

相信因果不表示不理性.

但当你理性的去阅读一些关于因果的书籍时,

你会发现到很多时候很多所谓的’大师/和上’会利用因果来迷惑众生,

以提高自己在宗教里的地位, 以便得到信徒们在金钱或其它物品上更多的贡献.

或是利用因果来促使信徒们选择性的行善.

比如行某些善(比如共养大师/和上)可以相对的得到比较多的善报.

结果许多人都争先恐后的去做这些所谓多回报的善举(有时还显露了人性的丑恶的一面)

而忽略了身边的基本善举


所以楼主,

你朋友所说的在某些程度上不是没有道理的,

也许需要检讨的是你自己也不一定哦

共勉之

[ 本帖最后由 clarencele 于 2-12-2008 10:49 AM 编辑 ]

chewboss

原帖由 JT88 于 1-12-2008 11:17 AM 发表
我朋友有这样想法，因该怎样解释给她听呢？

对无神论的人来说，除非能用科学来证明轮回，因果和灵魂，不然宗教和因果就是迷信。
你的朋友的想法很正确，没有问题。

沧浪澈

原帖由 JT88 于 1-12-2008 11:17 AM 发表
我朋友有这样想法，因该怎样解释给她听呢？

不能正确认识什么是佛教，而只相信因果报应，的确很容易陷入迷信。
也就是没正确认识到佛教，所以才会说因果轮回都是迷信，这是当然的。

Dharani

只是盲目的相信轮回的存在，人家说什么就相信什么，完全不亲自见证就只算是迷信。

当你知道轮回的存在，你就不是迷信了。

新新网友

因果论其实可以很好用的。
把什么事都推给不可知的过去就好了。什么都不用做了。

但是要搞清楚这样的因果论是不是佛陀教导的。

liewjian

不是，佛陀是发现，不是发明。之前的兴都教老早就有了这个因果论啦。
Dharani
当你知道轮回的存在，你就不是迷信了, 要怎样可以知道证明轮回的存在？

新新网友

原帖由 liewjian 于 2-12-2008 05:23 PM 发表
不是，佛陀是发现，不是发明。之前的兴都教老早就有了这个因果论啦。
Dharani
当你知道轮回的存在，你就不是迷信了, 要怎样可以知道证明轮回的存在？

对了，是发现。这因果本来就存在，佛陀就是发现它的存在。
好像牛顿发现地心吸力一样。

能证明轮回的存在的话，liewjian要考虑换教吗？

mahalwin

Thursday, June 5, 2008Copy Cat Buddha?by Ven. S. Dhammika
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/

Repeat anything often enough and it will start tobe seen as true. Take rebirth for example. How often have I heard orread this statement or versions of it - ‘The Buddha (Buddhism) borrowed(copied) the idea (doctrine) of rebirth (reincarnation) from Hinduism.’Coming from Swami Vivekananda, Christmas Humphries, Paul Carus or thelike, such a statement would be understandable – they were not scholarsand they had hidden agendas. But coming from theologians, historiansand even Indologists of repute it really is astonishing. It is alsoproof of the accuracy of the first line in this blog. I would like tobriefly examine three words in this statement; (1) Hinduism, (2)borrowed and (3) rebirth.

(1) TheBuddha could not possibly have borrowed the idea ofrebirth/reincarnation or indeed anything else from Hinduism for onesimple reason – Hinduism did not exist in the 5th century BCE. I am notbeing pedantic here, I’m being historically and chronologicallyprecise. What we now call and recognize as Hinduism did not begin totake its present form until at leastthe 3rd century CE, a good 800 years after the Buddha. The majorityreligions that flourished during the Buddha’s time were Brahmanism (theworship of the Vedic gods) and Indian animism. Both these religionsgradually merged, absorbed Upanisadic spirituality, various tribal gods(Ganesh, Hanuman), yoga philosophy, big chunks of Buddhism and emergedas what we would now recognize as Hinduism. To say that the Buddhacopied rebirth/reincarnation from Hinduism is to be as uninformed abouthistory as someone who would say that Jesus copied the idea ofsalvation from Islam. To take this comparison a little further, it iscertainly true that Jesus borrowed or took for granted much of Judaismand it would be just as true to say that Hinduism borrowed the conceptof rebirth/reincarnation from Buddhism; not the other way around.

(2)Now let’s have a look at ‘borrowed.’ Even if we accept the historicallyinaccurate notion that Hinduism existed at the time of the Buddha, thestatement in question would still be wrong. Because from where exactlywould the Buddha have borrowed the idea of rebirth? If we look at allpre-Buddhist (5th cent. BCE) Indian literature we find that there isonly the Vedas, the Brahmana Shastras and the eairler Upanishads.Throughout the whole of the Vedas there is not a single mention ofrebirth/reincarnation. They teach that when people die they go to the‘world of the fathers’ (pitrloka). Read through all the Brahamana Shastras and there is no reference to rebirth/reincarnation there either.
Theearly Upanisads contain a lot of speculation about what will happens tothe individual after death. The sage Yajnavalkya doubted thepossibility of any after-death existence (Brhadaranyaka, 3,9.28,6). TheChandogya Upanisad says that when you die you go to the sun(Ch.3,17,6,7 and also Brh.5.6,1). In another place rebirth is mentionedbut only to be dismissed as false (Brh.1,5,6). It is only in the Katha,the Manduaka, the Svetasvatara and the Maitri Upanisads that some formof reincarnation is accepted. Now the problem is that it is verydifficult to date these Upanisads; they may be pre-Buddhist,contemporary with or after the Buddha’s time. Whatever the case, theevidence shows that reincarnation was neither a widespread nor amainstream belief during the Buddha’s time or before. It is also worthpointing out that the Upanisads were secret teachings (upa + nisidati= to sit close) revealed only to the initiated; making it even lesslikely that their teaching of rebirth/reincarnation would have beenwidely known or accepted.
Now some Hindus may point out that theBhavagat Gita mentions reincarnation and that ‘it was written 5000years ago.’ Unfortunately, this claim belongs very much to the ‘AncientIndians Invented the Airplane’ school of Indian history. The theme ofthe Mahabharata, from which the Bhagavat Gita comes, is certainly veryancient but in its present form it dates from somewhere between the 1stand perhaps the 4th centuries CE, long after the Buddha.

(3)Now let’s discuss the word ‘rebirth.’ The Upanisads, the earliestnon-Buddhist Indian literature to mention the idea ofrebirth/reincarnation, calls it ‘second death’ (punar mrtyu). The Buddha used the term ‘again becoming’ (punabbhava,e.g. Sn.163). The Upanisads that do mention a ‘second death’ give nodetails of why or how this happens, other than to say that it is a soul(atman) that is reincarnated. The Buddha by contrast gives a detailedexplanation of the whole process of rebirth including the assertionthat it is not a soul that is reborn but rather that an impersonal flowof mental energy re-animates a new being. In short, the Buddha’steaching of rebirth differed significantly from that of the Upanisadicsages. So even to say that the Buddha copied the idea of some form ofreincarnation from the Upanisads is wrong. It is like saying thatbecause the Romans believed in a supreme god (Jupiter) and so did theChristians (Jehovah), that the latter must havXXXXX the idea fromthe former.
Conclusion? It is unlikely that the Buddha copied theidea of rebirth from the Upanisads and he certainly did not and couldnot havXXXXX it from Brahmanism or Hinduism. Whether he borrowed,copied or took for granted the idea from Jainism is another story. Butthat is something I might have a look at later.
[size=78%]The picture is a popular Hindu depiction of reincarnation.

Venerable这篇文章, 各位有何看法?

liewjian

英文？ 不明白。

mahalwin

原帖由 liewjian 于 2-12-2008 05:45 PM 发表
英文？ 不明白。

主要是说  那些人说佛陀 抄 兴都教这个, 找兴都教那个. Venerable在这个文章里指出 兴都教是佛灭后的宗教并提到佛教出现前的思想派系和宗教是否有 轮回这样的说法.

山野草夫

因果论，假如不谈到什么三世的因果，基本上人人都能接受的。

牵涉到前世今生来世的因果，除非你修行到一定的程度，要不然任谁也不可能会相信接受，因为这已经超出一般人所能理解的范围了。

相信因果论=迷信吗？这要看某人是如何解说因果论的咯。

基本的因果论，就好比种瓜得瓜，种豆得豆。
不可能有人会种西瓜，得苹果。或种苹果，得西瓜。
至于种下的因，什么时候会结果，那就要看缘咯，缘就好比条件。条件具足自然就会有结果。

liewjian

哦 ？人生就是被这些个“因”+ “果”+缘 来支配的 ？无法逃出这匡匡喇 ？

liewjian

不是吗 ？因为这也牵涉到“业”这个根。前世种的业，今世受得苦果。我不相信这
个。如 6 祖说的 :本来无一物；何处惹尘埃。而这“因果呢，就如此这般捆绑着人
的未来。做坏事得惩罚是律法，不是因果嘛。

幻藏

(1)律法馬是人類自己造出來的...
所以人類自己在限制自己，因爲自己無法克制自己、不了解自己...

(2)會不會吵架，了解自己、知道自己在做什麽，通常就不會發生啦...
吵架多半又是意識形態的問題啦... A對B錯，永遠在這個辯論、爭論的圈，說多無益...

怎麽走到一個怪圈圈去了...

歐普斯... 不好意思，路過而已，沒看前面的帖的...

[ 本帖最后由 幻藏 于 3-12-2008 09:35 AM 编辑 ]

kevinpss

所谓的因果论不过是人报复的心态而已。
种瓜得瓜，种豆得豆并不能够证明因果论的正确性。
因果论不过把一些世界定律加以扩大、一概而论，
也因为是从人出来的，自然可以轻易被人接受。

kevinpss

原帖由 山野草夫 于 2-12-2008 18:30 发表
因果论，假如不谈到什么三世的因果，基本上人人都能接受的。

牵涉到前世今生来世的因果，除非你修行到一定的程度，要不然任谁也不可能会相信接受，因为这已经超出一般人所能理解的范围了。

相信因果论=迷信吗？ ...

基本上来说，
你连你自己种下了什么你自己都不知道（我指的是你每日的行为），
你每日所有的行为不是你所能够完全解读和掌控的。
所谓的种收论，不过只是你眼前所见到的而已。

kevinpss

原帖由 liewjian 于 2-12-2008 19:04 发表
小妹，我今天不跟你说基督，我们来谈“因”和“果”。前世种的因，今天受的果，
今天和你吵架(因)，明天肯定你会面乌乌对着我(果)。哈哈。只有我只有我愿意向
你道歉，那么你就会再采我啦。是吗 ？现在因，下次果。 ...

1。人之初，性本善。
2。第一因=善。
3。第一果=善？

既然人之初，性本善。那么人类何来的业与果报？

咖啡豆

原帖由 kevinpss 于 3-12-2008 11:17 AM 发表
所谓的因果论不过是人报复的心态而已。
种瓜得瓜，种豆得豆并不能够证明因果论的正确性。
因果论不过把一些世界定律加以扩大、一概而论，
也因为是从人出来的，自然可以轻易被人接受。

因果论 = 人报复的心态？！
非也~非也~
善有善报，恶有恶报；不是不报，是时辰未到。
种善因就得善果嘛~与报复心态又有何干？

无论你信不信，因果还是围绕着你，这就是自然的定律。
就好像有些人明明不是很了解，却要批评一样； 《---因
错误百出还沾沾自喜，犹如夜郎国王般结果博众人慧心一笑。《---果

补充：
哟~近来打错字老毛病又发作了~

[ 本帖最后由 咖啡豆 于 3-12-2008 12:50 PM 编辑 ]

山野草夫

原帖由 liewjian 于 3-12-2008 08:02 AM 发表
不是吗 ？因为这也牵涉到“业”这个根。前世种的业，今世受得苦果。我不相信这
个。如 6 祖说的 :本来无一物；何处惹尘埃。而这“因果呢，就如此这般捆绑着人
的未来。做坏事得惩罚是律法，不是因果嘛。

因果没有捆绑着人，支配着人。
一切都是人本身的行为捆绑着，支配着自己。

一个结果，必定有原因，当你了解某种的结果的原因是什么，某种结果是因何而产生的。那么你就能大约预测到如果我这么做，有如此的思维，行为，就会产生怎么样的后果。

就以作坏事为例吧。
因为某人做坏事（因），结果他被惩罚。（果）
假如他能预知，做坏事是会得惩罚的，那么他就有可能不会去做坏事，就能免除惩罚。
所以假如他没做坏事，那么他就不可能因为坏事是会得惩罚。

既是说他没种下做坏事的因，那么他就不可能得到惩罚的果。

至于这个前世种的业，今世受得苦果。
不是那么简单，也不容易理解和解释，所以还是不谈。