homoelectronics -
so you saying "cause and effect is not true" according to buddism? or its half true and half not? if thats what you trying to say "thats what i said as well, read it"
also buddy dont like reading external links all can google and put the link for others to go an read.that wont construct a good dialog. just put whatever you have in simple terms so that all can understand.
also since you have to continue i guess its good for me to wait n c wat u have to tell fully..
madurax86's -
i know science cant explain everything infact if u read my post ive told that.but if you say we should neglect science and make the future path then that path will go backwards as i belive.
but what i actually was trying to say was if its a not a physical path that buddism leads to whats that it offers to common man. after all one should live and finish this worldly life first right. and during that time he has to use social struture (family,community,country..etc),respect natural laws (survival etc)...so you will need a a set of rules to bring up things as a community.but budda with all respect havent had faith in these stuff he's last conclution was to go away.
thats where buddism faces the problem of mass guiding. its only practical in individual level not collective level.
if you just take for example sri lankan politics involvements of buddist monks recently one thing is definitely for sure. those monks not gonna attain nibbana if they continue like this.simple cos what they trying to do is what siddartha gawthama left saying useless.so thats a point where there social life and personel phylosophy contradicts which i was talking about before.
i really dont think talking religion is a problem if people who talk know how to handle things.after all its better to put things on the table rather than keepin other will take if want or leave if not.