Why is God intelligently designing Avian Influenza viruses to jump to humans?

I respond totally different to images of the Buddha. I'm pretty sure the smiling fat Buddha is from China. There are others. The transdescent image of the Buddha is incredible to me. It shows our true Buddha nature. The Buddha nature that exists in each of us underneath all the crap. The one can we can get in touch with when we quiet and cleanse our mind and stop the clinging. The silence and dignity, we don't know our true selves.

The Catholic Monk Thomas Merton saw it.

In early December 1968, a week before his death, something wonderful befell the monk and writer Thomas Merton. He had been on the road since September, passing through California, Alaska, Hawaii, and India on his way to an international monastic conference in Thailand. The barrage of strange impressions had taken their toll. Exhilarated, exhausted, torn between homesickness and wanderlust, his habitual round of mass and divine office, lectio divina and manual labor torn asunder, Merton was ready to be lifted to a new level of being. The opportunity came in the forests of Ceylon, as he stood before the three colossal Buddhas at the caves of Polonnaruwa:



I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing. ... Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious.

That a catholic monk enjoyed this moment of insight in a Buddhist land has provoked considerable interest, even leading to speculation that Merton planned to renounce his vows and remain abroad, perhaps as a student of the Dalai Lama. But this seems improbable; Merton was entranced by many spiritual paths, from Islam to Zen, but he was an intensely devout Christian nonetheless, and Christians from St. Paul on have drawn inspiration from the iconography and practices of other faiths. More suggestive, I think, is his emphasis on the "silence" of the enormous statues. It is the first thing that he notices, and he returns to it again and again. The Buddhas of Polonnaruwa stand for a way of life that "needs nothing" and can therefore "afford to be silent unnoticed, undiscovered." They have "seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything--without refutation--without establishing some other argument. ... For the doctrinaire," Merton adds, "such silence can be frightening."

http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/excerpts/exc_20020102.shtml


Q: Is it possible for you to sum up the essence of the true values of Buddhism?

Thich Nhat Hanh: Buddhism teaches us not to try to run away from suffering. You have to confront suffering. You have to look deeply into the nature of suffering in order to recognize its cause, the making of the suffering. Suffering is the First Noble Truth, and the making of the suffering -- namely, the roots of suffering -- is the Second Noble Truth. Once you understand the roots of suffering, the Fourth Noble Truth -- the path leading to the transformation of suffering -- is revealed. And if you go on that path -- namely, the path of right thinking, right speech, and right action -- then you can transform your suffering.


The Buddha told the venerable monk, "People in the world tend to believe in one of two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. That is because they are bound to wrong perception. It is because they are bound to wrong perception that they have ideas of being and non-being."

These words of the sutra are very clear. We have wrong views, we have wrong perceptions, and because of those wrong perceptions we think that this world is real, or this world is not real.

"Kaccayana, most people are bound to the internal formations of discrimination and preference, grasping and attachment. Those who are not bound to the internal formations of grasping and attachment no longer imagine and cling to the idea of a self."

Here we have two words: "grasping," which is not letting go, and the other word is "attachment," like we have a crab that catches hold of us and won’t let us go. And the thing that catches us and will not let us go is our ideas, our wrong perceptions. We are caught in our ideas, our perceptions, and therefore we are attached to them. "Those who are not bound to the internal formations of grasping and attachment no longer imagine and cling to the idea of a self," they don’t cling, they don’t imagine, they don’t compare, they don’t calculate that there is a self. "Imagine:" This word in Chinese means "to measure," "to estimate," "to conceive." We have an idea about something and we say that it’s important or it’s not important; it exists, it doesn’t exist. Wrong perceptions—that is something we imagine, things about truth. We load onto truth this idea and that idea. Actually the truth is not like that, but we think it is like that. We think of something that’s not permanent, but we think it’s permanent. Something doesn’t have a self, but we think it has a self. These things are dangerous. We think we are in security with these ideas, but in fact they are dangerous, and this is wrong perception. And the reason for all our grasping, all our imagining, is our ideas, the ideas about self. Our idea about self is the center of all our grasping, of all our imagining, of all our wrong perceptions. The idea of self is the hidden idea that there is something called "self," "me," or "mine." It’s an idea that "I," "me," exist, and that there are things belonging to "me." "Me" and "mine."

"They understand that when suffering comes to be it is because the conditions are favourable, and it fades away when conditions are no longer favourable. They no longer have any doubts, their understanding has not come to them through others; it is their own insight."

The Buddha is talking about suffering. Why is he talking about suffering here? Suffering is a phenomenon, just like a picture, a table. So here talking about suffering is just a talk about a phenomenon, the Buddha is not talking about the Four Noble Truths here. For instance, we have a feeling of suffering, we look deeply, and we see that the suffering comes from different conditions, and that is why it has arisen—just like this flower. This flower, we look deeply at it and we see that there are conditions coming together that make the flower possible. "They understand, for example, that suffering comes to be when conditions are favourable and that it fades away when conditions are no longer favourable." The same is true of a flower, a table, when the conditions for them not being there are not there, then they will not be there. The person no longer has any doubts, because if we look deeply and see clearly like that, how can we have any doubts? We see that everything comes to be because of the coming together of favourable conditions, and when those conditions fall apart, that thing can no longer exist. So why should there be anything we should doubt? "Their understanding has not come to them through others. It is their own insight." It’s not because we hear Buddha say that there is no self, and that this comes to be because of different causes and conditions, that we believe it, but because we have looked deeply and have been able to see. It’s not that we accept this because of the words, the teachings, and the ideas of somebody else.

Here the Buddha says we have to experience these things for ourselves. We have to look deeply and see it for ourselves. We are not repeating like a parrot the things that other people have said. We have suffering—who doesn’t have suffering? We look deeply into the heart of that suffering and when we look into it, we see the causes and conditions near and far which have brought it about. And we see it on our own. Someone else doesn’t say to us, "You are suffering—you have causes and conditions for your suffering." It’s with our own wisdom that we look into our suffering. We see we have suffering, we look into it, we see the elements near and far which have brought it about. Therefore we have no doubts about our insight; we know that that is so. And that insight comes from ourselves, it’s not something we receive from somebody else. "A person knows, for example, that suffering comes to be when conditions are favourable and that it fades away when conditions are no longer favourable." We say, "For example suffering arises when it has conditions..." If we put in the words "for example" it’s clearer, because suffering here is just an example of something, of one of the phenomena.
------------------

My mother once told me people used to get upset about images of a laughing and smiling Jesus. Before the '60s you didn't really see them. Things change.

 

First, let me say that I am not a Buddhist. I read a translation of the Diamond Sutra at one point and that's as close to actual contact as I've gotten.

Most of the sources that people seem to be quoting here are Indian sources, and it is my understanding that that, though the earliest source, is only one of four or so Buddhist traditions.

As with Eastern Orthadoxy or Roman Catholicism, I think alot of "stuff" exists that is later interpretational stuff, and while it may be portrayed as core materiel, it isn't necessarily germaine.

If I were to reduce Christianity to one or two key sentances, it would be "A dualsitic man/god named Jesus died as a way to absolve us from our failings. If you beleive that this is true you will be rewarded with this gift."

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the core idea of Budhism across traditions as I understand it seems to be "The world is full of unpleasant crap outside of your control but it is transitory. People have always been people and they will continue to engage in petty crap and most people become entrapped into worrying about the current crap, the future crap or the past crap. None of this crap is important. You should instead concern your self with cultivating a set of personal qualities that will allow you to rise above the crap, and stop worrying about the past or the future or stuff you can't control. This guy Siddhartha did that as a "proof of concept" in order to lead the way for others."

In that way, though it is supposed to cultivate a spiritual detachment, it concerns itself more with the current world. I think that's why people say that it is capable of working with other religions. A good example of this earthly concern would be the Zen Buddhist Tea Ceremony which is all about the asthetic ritual of the moment.

I do think that if one were in the perfect Buddhist bodhisattva, one would probably be detached to the point that one worry too much about what happened after one died, and therefore probably couldn't be too much of an Evangelical Christian.

 

Also, it's living through the crap that's important. You are what you take in. Existence is precious. Even the plagues, wars, and corruption.

Enlightenment is one giant catch-22.

 

Meowgi has already posted a lot of information about it and I can't add anymore to the intellectual info that what he has so I'm going to tell you my own personal understanding.

Buddhism doesn't ignore suffering and is actually all about understanding the nature of suffering and seeing a way past it. Buddhism is also very much about compassion and one of the highest aspirations of Mahayana Buddhism is to be a Boddhisatva or a compassionate being. Its only through the understanding of suffering and the acknowledgement of the existence of suffering that we can rise past our own individualistic self-centered existence and embrace the whole of existence. Compassion helps us understand suffering but also helps us to free us from obsession with self.

One problem I think is that in our contemporary Western Society Buddhism has become very intellectual, abstracted and New Age. Even though I go to the local Zen Center for Dharma talks I occasionally get frustrated with what I see as their self-absorbtion. That may be what you're seeing MadMax but Buddhism is far broader than that and there is a great tradition of compassionate acts and Buddhist groups. I would recommend checking out the Tzu Chi organization which is a worldwide Buddhist Compassionate society. I know the Houston Tzu Chi chapter has done a lot of work with Katrina survivors. They can give you a better understanding of the compassionate service that Buddhists have done.

 

The differences between Buddhism and Christianity are huge. The differences between Buddha and Jesus Christ are even far greater.

God is a moral being. All His attributes and character or moral. That is why the Bible states that God is Holy. Faultless in Moral Character.

Christianity reveals that God has a moral conscience and He created man with a moral conscience.

Without justice there is no compassion. It is a moral impossibility.
You cannot even say someone is suffering without a moral reference point.

A wrong suffered is a moral equivalency.

If you say someone deserves to suffer or it is right for them to suffer then you have made a moral judgment. If you say someone does not deserve to suffer or it is wrong for them to suffer you have made a moral judgment.

The choice to say it is nothing is a moral choice. It exalts self.

The man who says there is no right or wrong cannot also be selfless. That requires a moral choice.

The man who says there is no right or wrong cannot understand suffering because that requires a moral reference point.

If there is no justice (right and wrong) there can be no suffering. But there is suffering.

You cannot say suffering is nothing and claim there are no moral choices. Because you just made one.

Moral choice and conscience cannot be explained away because it is truth.

Jeremiah 9:23 This is what the LORD says:
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom
or the strong man boast of his strength
or the rich man boast of his riches,

24 but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he understands and knows me,
that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,"
declares the LORD.

 

"Truth is so simple a child can understand it and an adult can pervert it."

"The man who denies moral responsibility is like a man who holds his breath
and thinks there is no air."

"The majority of people mistake God's patience for proof He doesn't exist."

 

What does that mean? It is the other way around. Compassion comes through understanding. That's why people say only god can truly judge, because only he has a complete understanding.

Buddhism is all about understanding and compassion.

Buddhism doesn't say people deserve to suffer. It just says suffering is a part of life. Negative feelings are a part of life, but all beings wish to be happy, and we can be.

And Buddhism does say there are "rights and wrongs". Morality in Buddhism is based on the understanding that all beings want to be happy and deserve respect.

below is from: http://www.lankaweb.com/dhamma/view12.html

The Buddhist perspective of morality is well illustrated especially in the Sigalovada, Vyagghapajja, Parabhava, Vasala, Mangala, Metta and the Dhammika suttas and of course in the Dhammapada, to mention only a few sources. The morality reflected and explained in these is not founded on any divine revelation. It is a rational practical code based on verifiable facts and individual experience. The individual is to practise this teaching in everyday life with effort and diligence and depend on oneself, cultivating self discipline and self-control, self-reliance and self-purification. There are no dogmas to be believed and followed blindly, without reasoning and putting to the test. Praying to the Buddha or other beings, the performance of superstitious rites and ceremonies, meaningless sacrifices and penance’s are not helpful. Morality in Buddhism provides human beings with guide lines of conduct of what it is good to do and what it is not good to do for the sake of oneself and of others. It is an in-looking or looking into the behaviour of the mind type of morality with an outside glass and a rotten and defiled interior. It guides the layman to achieve and enjoy material progress in harmony with spiritual satisfaction and upliftment. It guides us to calm our senses, avoid conflict between the mind and the heart, enabling us to get on with our work, duties and responsibilities with peace of mind and joy.

The morality as expounded by the Buddha is not difficult to understand or practise during every conscious moment of our life. It does not need to be postponed to the years of retirement or some such period. It is to be practised by us incorporating it in our thoughts, words and actions in our day-to-day practical life. We should train the young to practise it. Children are unable to understand theoretically the concepts of morality. It has to be a part of their informal and formal education given to them by those responsible not only by admonition and precepts, but by the real example set by adults in the eyes of children. These adults in particular are parents and teachers, the clergy and also other adults who necessarily come in contact with children.

Christianity does not hold a monopoly on morality. It's not even close. The might be great differences between the teachings of Jesus and The Buddha, but the similarities are far, far greater.

 

Yes that is true which is why I think that value judgement debate between the two (which one is right and which one is wrong) is ultimately unprofitable.
These are issues of faith that defy a common rationality. There are some issues that relate to each other like the need for compassion but a debate over doctrine IMO is almost impossible to have.

Moral choice and conscience isn't denied in Buddhism and Buddhism fully recognizes that humans are granted choice. Buddhism regards morality in light of cause and effect so bad choices have bad effects and good choices have good affects. The biggest difference might be that in Christianity God is the final arbiter of justice whereas in a Buddhist view there is no single arbiter but the laws of the Universe itself are imbued with justice so that through Karma one who does wrong that wrong eventually returns to them in this life or the next.

 

thanks for that input. you're right...the only Buddhism I've come in contact with is here in the States. and your charcterization of it is accurate as i've seen it in our culture.

 

Based upon your comments I see further differences, because I have not been able to get one single view of Buddhism your opinions help.

Bad choices and Good choices is moral law by definition. The Christian faith reveals God as truth and the One who is righteous- defining right and wrong.
Who establishes right and wrong morally for a Buddhist?

Also you mention justice imbued in the Universe. Justice implies equity and guilt. In other words the consequences fit the wrong (crime).

Justice says an eye for an eye not death for a scratch. You wouldn't give someone a speeding ticket for murder or capital punishment for having an inspection sticker out of date. That would be injustice.

So the consequence for offending man would be far less than the consequence for offending God. Justice implies righteousness, equity and impartiality.

Do Buddhists have moral values that reflect righteousness, equity and impartiality and who decides what is righteous?


I apologize I cannot at this time answer MR. MEOWGI line by line. It would take me a while to properly reply because his view of Christianity to me seems un-biblical. Sorry, I will try later.

 

The principles that lie behind that are the foundation Buddhist morality are the principles of equality and reciprocity.

What equality means is that all living beings are equal in their essential attitudes. In other words, all living beings want to be happy. They fear pain, death and suffering. All want to live, to enjoy happiness and security. And this is also true to all living beings just as it is true to ourselves. We can call this equality the great universality of the Buddhist vision in which all living beings are equal. On the basis of this equality, we are encouraged to act with the awareness of reciprocity.

Reciprocity means that just as we would not like to be killed, robbed, abused and so forth, so would all other living beings not like to have these things happen to them. One can put this principle of reciprocity quite simply by saying "do not act towards others in a way which you would not want them to act towards you". Given these principles of equality and reciprocity, it is not hard to see how they stand behind, how they create the foundation for the rules of good conduct.

http://www.buddhanet.net/fundbud6.htm

 

Thank you, that further helps me understand your views.

In Christianity all living beings are not equal in essential attitudes. For instance animals live according to designs of instinct without any regard to moral conscience. Humans live with moral conscience.

Moral motive doesn't occur in the animal kingdom. That is one of the differences God designed in man and animal.

The desire to be happy is subjective. The motive to choose right and wrong is objective. Moral choices do not depend on one's own happiness. Ultimate happiness might be a Buddhist concept but for a Christian it would only be a consequence of correct moral motives. The fact that making a right moral choice would result in happiness is not the proper motive for a Christian to choose what is righteous and pleasing to God. For an example a Christian chooses to be honest because it is morally right. It reflects the correct character of God, the image and design we are created with. It is heart obedience to God's design for intelligence.

For a Christian fear is not a proper motive for moral choice either. Fear may influence a choice but the motive of moral choice is whether it is morally right or wrong. To live with a motive of personal happiness and fear is what the Bible describes as selfishness or wickedness. If one is motivated by happiness and fear then one is consumed with oneself. This is a root of all the evil in the world- man deciding for himself what is best. The Bible clearly states this is the true state of man- he goes the way he wants to, he leaves the path of righteousness.

Reciprocity has no value as you described because there is no moral basis for it if you do not know what is right and wrong.


"do not act towards others in a way which you would not want them to act towards you". - this is far different than the Christian 'Golden Rule'.

You don't leave it to man to decide what actions are appropriate towards oneself or others. Jesus tied the central moral question together in two commands-

Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

These verses explain the moral law, what is right and wrong.

That gives the understanding to Luke 6:31 31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

This verse (the Golden Rule) means that we treat other people the way we SHOULD be treated. In other words righteously.

In Christianity man is not equal with animals.
In Christianity man is not equal with God.

Reciprocity for a Christian is not based upon what we like, as you stated but upon the righteousness of God.

If all you are saying is that your own personal happiness, fear and what you like defines (or motivates) the moral justice of reciprocity then you have successfully answered the question why the world has been engulfed in injustice, hate, war, murder, lies, theft, rebellion, betrayal and the like since the creation.----Man refuses to submit to rightousness because his heart motives are immoral.

Man loves to submit to his own authority and rejects submitting to an intelligent, righteous God.

Honesty is morally intelligent. Lying is morally insane.
Love is morally intelligent. Hate is morally insane.
Justice is morally intelligent. Injustice is morally insane.

God is intelligent, logical and rational and of course just and righteous in all His ways.

Understanding does not bring about righteous moral choices. A morally right motive causes righteous choices.

Understanding is violated everyday by wicked choices. The Bible points this out-herefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Moral Motive in the heart-
causes attitudes of the heart-
causes choices to be made-
which determine eternal character and judgment.

The first cause of right choices and sin is the human heart.

God looks at the heart. He knows those who love Him and who love their neighbor as much as themselves. This is the law and the prophets.

 

We are equal with animals in that we all desire to be happy, not by intellegence.

Understanding does bring moral choices. Misunderstanding brings immoral choices. People think injustice, hate, war, murder, lies, theft, rebellion, betrayal will bring them happiness. But if you truly understand that it doesn't bring happiness (or goodness) you will not look for for them to do so.

If you don't understand why your choice is moral or not, or it just dedicated to you, you might as well get a lobotomy. There is no more use for rational thought. Right and wrong is understood though each choice. Each situation and each choice is unique, none are exactly the same. There really aren't any blanket answers (although it might be close).

"Moral choices do not depend on ones own happiness" - You're right. It depends on one owns understanding.

Think "goodness" along with happiness. It's different from the happiness you get from winning the lottery etc. The planet earth has inherit goodness. Nobody looks at the moon with disdain. Christians look at themselves so negatively. It is nothing but self defeating. HUMANS HAVE INHERIT GOODNESS. Good news!

It's not just a personal happiness that Buddhists live for. It's for the happiness and goodness of all beings and non-beings. Buddhists call it ulitamte goodness and happiness, you call it god.

 

"Only God is Good" - The words of Jesus Christ.

We have a fundemental difference here. It is not negative to see God as good, loving, just, patient, merciful, true, faithful and perfect in all His character and being.

To admit we fall very very far short of that is not negative it is honest.

Goodness and happiness are very very different things. One's happiness is based upon personal fulfillment and satisfaction. Goodness is based upon doing what is right.

It is the proof of all human history that these are in conflict most of the time.

Until you can define right and wrong you cannot put goodness into the equation.

 

So you can't look at a sunset, a tree, a loved one and know that they are good? How sad.

If only God is good, how do you make any good choices? Are there any good shepards? Can you have a good meal? Can you be good for goodness sake?

Goodness, happiness and peace go together. I don't think I am stretching any boundries here...

I did define "wrong and right". "Wrong" does not bring goodness, happiness and peace. "Right" does.

 

with no intent to piss of those with different beliefs, here is a video sure to piss off those with different beliefs, and I wouldn't post if if I didn't find it extremely hilarious.

http://movies.lionhead.com/movie/1168

these are short movies made by a computer game. This one is about intelligent design, a topic I really have no major opinion in, but disagree with, but thought a few people here would enjoy it.

 

Meowgi has already answered this in better detail than I could but to add my 2 cents.

I agree that people should act morally because it is the right thing to do but from my understanding of Christianity that there also is a reward and punishment system that entices people with the promise of eternal happiness through Heaven for moral behavior and punishment through Hell. True this is more specifically a Catholic belief but it to lesser or greater extents in the other denominations its recognized that moral behavior brings one closer to godliness. The very act of faith within Christianity the promise of eternal happiness through Heaven is motivating reward too so I don't believe its correct to say that the followers of one faith are motivated by the desire for the happiness while those of another are purely selfless.

I also don't think that you can portray the Buddhist view that looks at a cause and affect relationship vs. one where there is a higher being that is the arbiter as the cause immorality in the World. Its not like Buddhists go around raping, robbing and killing because they have no hierarchical morality while Christians do not. In regard to the willingness of man to submit to righteosness there's also been a lot of misery and blood inflicted in the name of submitting to righteousness.

But again this is why its unprofitable to attempt for followers to debate the value of different faiths. No faith has proven to bring universal peace to all mankind and no faith has proven to bring universal misery. Its also not rational to argue whether the way to universal peace is through Jesus or through the Dharma. They are faiths and faith by definition isn't rational.

 

I was looking for a translation of the aforementioned diamond sutra, and found one online.

Re-reading it, the form reminds me a bit of the Annalects, or Plato's writings on Aristotle, as it takes the form of a interaction between the "master" and various "students".

In the same way that Aristotle can be read without believing in Zeus, or The Analects of Confucus can be read without believing in a Confucian view of the spiritual world, one can read the Diamond Sutra and disagree on details but find philisophical value in generalities. Or, at any rate, at least I can.

Also, just for the record, Buddhist monks can get angry and fight just as Christian televangelists can be hateful bigots. The message should not be confused with the messenger. I've felt the same sort of serene inner peace and goodness that is being described here as a Buddhist quality while in the presence of any number of Catholic nuns or African missionaries.