Is seagal a true buddhist?
- Thread starter Reservoir Dog
- Start date
yudansha
TheGreatOne
If you reply after reading this ALL, you'll impress me (if it's intelligently put).
Now, I won't get into this, but there are some issues that need to be resolved. What does it mean to be a 'true buddhist?' Is it for one to have a real, strong, and deep belief in a superior being?
O.K. I'll go off topic here but it is just to lead me to my final point, which goes back to the topic and what I started with:
Steven Seagal has ventured away from Warner Bros. because he didn't like being tossed around and commanded as he signed a contract w/o having fully understood the reality of the business world and the potential law suits that could tie him up if he were to brake away from the deal. Thus, as his contract ended, Steven Seagal was quoted saying that he was going to make movies that would have to put the viewers into deep contemplation about the message of the story told and the portrayals of his characters. So, the movie 'Out For A Kill' showed Steven Seagal play an ARCHEOLOGY professor (Robert Burns). Steven Seagal co-produced the project (meaning that he paid for the movie to be completed, and hence he partially paid for himself to portray the role of an archeologist)
Here's where I get back to my point:
For all of you who do not know what the study of archeology encompasses:
It is the scientific study of past human culture and behavior, from the origins of humans to the present through the examination of material remains of previous human societies (i.e. evidence such as fossils - preserved bones) attempting to reconstruct past ways of life. Archaeologists concentrate their studies on past societies and changes in those societies over extremely long periods of time, also known as EVOLUTION.
For all who believe in dinasours (i.e. believe in such species' presence), you in turn believe in the concept of evolution. Here is the gist of it: Humans are in taxonomic terms named as Homo Sapiens (translated as the 'modern humans') who evolved from 'older humans' that originated as Hominids out of the mammalian lineage that most of you refer today to as the monkeys. Mammals evolved from a lineage of reptiles in the Jurassic era (the time when dinosours dominated all else forcing the mammals to be of smaller size in order for them to survive; although dinosours themselves originated from the era right before that, called the Triassic). Reptiles evolved from amphibians during the Carboniferous ('swampy') era, amphibians evolved from ... and so on. All dates back to the beginning of the Cambrian era (550 or so million years ago) when life started out from a single celled bacteria just as the oxygen levels resembled those of today.
I don't know how it is in Buddhism (as I was born into an Orthodox family), but it is universally known that the Bible starts out by saying that life began with Adam and Eve ... Such is a contradiction to all of the ongoing long term studies that have been done on evolution by the evolutionary biologists that got their proof from people in the field of archeology and paleontology. So to me, it seems like Steven Seagal is 'riding the fence.' He wants people to be put into contemplation over his new genre of movies (vs. Seagal's 90's hits), to understand the man behind the character and what he stands for (i.e. Religion, world piece, environment friendliness ...), yet he plays roles of people who make it their duty in life to prove something; and in "Out For A Kill," Robert Burns was an ARCHEOLOGYST --> so what is it? What's his stand? Or is this something new, an archeologyst (who basically proves that evolution is the process of life) who is also a religious monk? It's like having a double personality (watch the movie "Identity" and you'll get an idea of multiple personality syndrome).
So, is Steven Seagal a 'true' believer in the superior being? Well, after contemplating on one of his latest movies, I would say that Steven Seagal does not yet know, but is trying to figure it out the best way he believes is possible (socializing with Dalai Lama, talking to scientists ...).
Now, I won't get into this, but there are some issues that need to be resolved. What does it mean to be a 'true buddhist?' Is it for one to have a real, strong, and deep belief in a superior being?
O.K. I'll go off topic here but it is just to lead me to my final point, which goes back to the topic and what I started with:
Steven Seagal has ventured away from Warner Bros. because he didn't like being tossed around and commanded as he signed a contract w/o having fully understood the reality of the business world and the potential law suits that could tie him up if he were to brake away from the deal. Thus, as his contract ended, Steven Seagal was quoted saying that he was going to make movies that would have to put the viewers into deep contemplation about the message of the story told and the portrayals of his characters. So, the movie 'Out For A Kill' showed Steven Seagal play an ARCHEOLOGY professor (Robert Burns). Steven Seagal co-produced the project (meaning that he paid for the movie to be completed, and hence he partially paid for himself to portray the role of an archeologist)
Here's where I get back to my point:
For all of you who do not know what the study of archeology encompasses:
It is the scientific study of past human culture and behavior, from the origins of humans to the present through the examination of material remains of previous human societies (i.e. evidence such as fossils - preserved bones) attempting to reconstruct past ways of life. Archaeologists concentrate their studies on past societies and changes in those societies over extremely long periods of time, also known as EVOLUTION.
For all who believe in dinasours (i.e. believe in such species' presence), you in turn believe in the concept of evolution. Here is the gist of it: Humans are in taxonomic terms named as Homo Sapiens (translated as the 'modern humans') who evolved from 'older humans' that originated as Hominids out of the mammalian lineage that most of you refer today to as the monkeys. Mammals evolved from a lineage of reptiles in the Jurassic era (the time when dinosours dominated all else forcing the mammals to be of smaller size in order for them to survive; although dinosours themselves originated from the era right before that, called the Triassic). Reptiles evolved from amphibians during the Carboniferous ('swampy') era, amphibians evolved from ... and so on. All dates back to the beginning of the Cambrian era (550 or so million years ago) when life started out from a single celled bacteria just as the oxygen levels resembled those of today.
I don't know how it is in Buddhism (as I was born into an Orthodox family), but it is universally known that the Bible starts out by saying that life began with Adam and Eve ... Such is a contradiction to all of the ongoing long term studies that have been done on evolution by the evolutionary biologists that got their proof from people in the field of archeology and paleontology. So to me, it seems like Steven Seagal is 'riding the fence.' He wants people to be put into contemplation over his new genre of movies (vs. Seagal's 90's hits), to understand the man behind the character and what he stands for (i.e. Religion, world piece, environment friendliness ...), yet he plays roles of people who make it their duty in life to prove something; and in "Out For A Kill," Robert Burns was an ARCHEOLOGYST --> so what is it? What's his stand? Or is this something new, an archeologyst (who basically proves that evolution is the process of life) who is also a religious monk? It's like having a double personality (watch the movie "Identity" and you'll get an idea of multiple personality syndrome).
So, is Steven Seagal a 'true' believer in the superior being? Well, after contemplating on one of his latest movies, I would say that Steven Seagal does not yet know, but is trying to figure it out the best way he believes is possible (socializing with Dalai Lama, talking to scientists ...).
Lotussan
I Belong To Steven
Let me make clear, though, Buddha is a great source of reverance, the greatest source for the Buddhists and a shining reminder of the ultimate goal of enlightenment, I am not minimizing the role of the Buddha or his teachings in any way, I am just saying that he is not "God" to the Buddhists, and he is not worshipped as a God, as some people might have come to believe...
tora
Funmaker
So,Yudansha,you believe we're descending from the monkeys?Are you sure that not vice versa?
Well,Steven might still be a seeker like most of us but I believe he knows what he's doing so let's put it that way.
And speaking of the Bible,you shouldn't take it that way,you have to read between the lines and between those lines that are between the ones that are written down.And in my comprehension the Bible doesn't summarise all history,just a certain part of it what it was interested in.
Well,Steven might still be a seeker like most of us but I believe he knows what he's doing so let's put it that way.
And speaking of the Bible,you shouldn't take it that way,you have to read between the lines and between those lines that are between the ones that are written down.And in my comprehension the Bible doesn't summarise all history,just a certain part of it what it was interested in.
yudansha
TheGreatOne
O.K. but does Steven Seagal believe in God? That's another question to be answered.
Tora what you are forgetting is that you nor nobody else has absolutely any proof supporting any non-evolutionary theories.
And I hope you were kidding, (because that's how I perceived this) as I explained this: "So,Yudansha,you believe we're descending from the monkeys?Are you sure that not vice versa?"
I wrote: "the Bible starts out by saying that life began with Adam and Eve ..."
You replied: "And speaking of the Bible,you shouldn't take it that way,you have to read between the lines and between those lines that are between the ones that are written down.And in my comprehension the Bible doesn't summarise all history,just a certain part of it what it was interested in."
Tora, I think you do not understand: I was saying that the theories of EVOLUTION provide proof not only of the history of societal communications and so on, but also about the beginning of it all - THAT'S where the contradiction lies, and THAT'S where all of the arguments b/w biology and religion lie.
Tora what you are forgetting is that you nor nobody else has absolutely any proof supporting any non-evolutionary theories.
And I hope you were kidding, (because that's how I perceived this) as I explained this: "So,Yudansha,you believe we're descending from the monkeys?Are you sure that not vice versa?"
I wrote: "the Bible starts out by saying that life began with Adam and Eve ..."
You replied: "And speaking of the Bible,you shouldn't take it that way,you have to read between the lines and between those lines that are between the ones that are written down.And in my comprehension the Bible doesn't summarise all history,just a certain part of it what it was interested in."
Tora, I think you do not understand: I was saying that the theories of EVOLUTION provide proof not only of the history of societal communications and so on, but also about the beginning of it all - THAT'S where the contradiction lies, and THAT'S where all of the arguments b/w biology and religion lie.
Gary Gabelhouse
New Member
Evolution, Proof and Religions (Long)...
Hello All,
Being educated to be a biology teacher with a minor in physical anthropology, and also having been an Associate Pastor in the United Methodist Church, and having made many pilgramages to the Shingon Buddhist monasteries in Koyasan, Japan, I have, perhaps, a unique perspective on this...discussion ;-)
Yudansha, you stated that the fossils, rock, etc. offered proof of evolutionary theory that is in conflict with the Bible which doesn't cotton to their flock doin' the Buddha, as they would say in the Bible Belt of the USA.
Well, there have been a number of discoveries made within the last decade or two that:
1. Cast in doubt the theory of Evolution;
2. Favor a sort of creationism;
3. Cast in doubt traditional creationism.
First, the fossil record does not support a gradual evolution of the world. The fossil record would suggest the world developed in incredibly short fits and starts. The fossil record poses that earth went from a largely primordial soup to the incredibly species-rich Cambian period in a short period of time. Then there was a slow period when SUDDENLY dinosaurs--bunches and bunches of species of dinosaurs were walking and swimming on earth.
As to man descending along the primate line from lemurs to monkeys to apes to man . . .
There is no fossil record to a gradual growth of monkeys and apes during the miocene--none. Instead, the fossil record suggests a very accute population of earth by a number of different monkeys and apes.
Also, the fossil record would suggest that modern man first walked on this earth about 150,000 years ago--Cro-Magnum Man--virtually the same man as today. There is no fossil record that would evidence a transition between the Austaliopithicus Africans and Cro- Magnum. Neanderthal, in my opinion is a blind alley species unto itself.
Also, the age of a species can be determined by analysis of Mitochondrial DNA of those species. Through years of testing and analysis geneticists have determined that, on average, a species' mitochondrial DNA will "change" (due to gamma and cosmic rays) 2% per million years the species has been on the planet.
When human mitochondrial DNA is tested for changes to the DNA, one finds a .3% - .4% change rate. This would suggest that from DNA testing, humankind, as a species, is at most 200,000 years old. Interestingly enough, dating of the eariest Cro-Magnum fossils are . . . 150,000 years old. Cooincidence?
Now, one may ask, how in the world did we come to find ourselves here? Some contend an intervention theory--divine intervention--not all in 6 days or even 6, one-million year old days. But certainly one could explain what the fossil record suggests at as growth and development in fits and starts--man included.
And from my seminary study of Buddhism, Christianity and other religions of the world, I see more commonality than I see differences. I believe the conflicts are based on poor theology and politics which are based on greed and ego.
If you read the Old Testament in Hebrew--throw in a few of the old Hebrew Appochrypha (which the early Christian church threw out), read the New Testament in Greek, study the Hindu Vedas, read the Jewish Torah, study the Dharma of Buddha, study the Shinto ceremonies, do a sweat lodge with a real Medicine Man and then participate in a Lakota Sun Dance and then read the Koran . . . well, it aint seamless but the religions of the world have many similarities and common themes.
As to my personal beliefs . . . I believe we as a species have not quite yet evolved from man to human beings. Just my ni-yen.
Diatribe over for today ;-)
Best Regards,
Gary Gabelhouse
Hello All,
Being educated to be a biology teacher with a minor in physical anthropology, and also having been an Associate Pastor in the United Methodist Church, and having made many pilgramages to the Shingon Buddhist monasteries in Koyasan, Japan, I have, perhaps, a unique perspective on this...discussion ;-)
Yudansha, you stated that the fossils, rock, etc. offered proof of evolutionary theory that is in conflict with the Bible which doesn't cotton to their flock doin' the Buddha, as they would say in the Bible Belt of the USA.
Well, there have been a number of discoveries made within the last decade or two that:
1. Cast in doubt the theory of Evolution;
2. Favor a sort of creationism;
3. Cast in doubt traditional creationism.
First, the fossil record does not support a gradual evolution of the world. The fossil record would suggest the world developed in incredibly short fits and starts. The fossil record poses that earth went from a largely primordial soup to the incredibly species-rich Cambian period in a short period of time. Then there was a slow period when SUDDENLY dinosaurs--bunches and bunches of species of dinosaurs were walking and swimming on earth.
As to man descending along the primate line from lemurs to monkeys to apes to man . . .
There is no fossil record to a gradual growth of monkeys and apes during the miocene--none. Instead, the fossil record suggests a very accute population of earth by a number of different monkeys and apes.
Also, the fossil record would suggest that modern man first walked on this earth about 150,000 years ago--Cro-Magnum Man--virtually the same man as today. There is no fossil record that would evidence a transition between the Austaliopithicus Africans and Cro- Magnum. Neanderthal, in my opinion is a blind alley species unto itself.
Also, the age of a species can be determined by analysis of Mitochondrial DNA of those species. Through years of testing and analysis geneticists have determined that, on average, a species' mitochondrial DNA will "change" (due to gamma and cosmic rays) 2% per million years the species has been on the planet.
When human mitochondrial DNA is tested for changes to the DNA, one finds a .3% - .4% change rate. This would suggest that from DNA testing, humankind, as a species, is at most 200,000 years old. Interestingly enough, dating of the eariest Cro-Magnum fossils are . . . 150,000 years old. Cooincidence?
Now, one may ask, how in the world did we come to find ourselves here? Some contend an intervention theory--divine intervention--not all in 6 days or even 6, one-million year old days. But certainly one could explain what the fossil record suggests at as growth and development in fits and starts--man included.
And from my seminary study of Buddhism, Christianity and other religions of the world, I see more commonality than I see differences. I believe the conflicts are based on poor theology and politics which are based on greed and ego.
If you read the Old Testament in Hebrew--throw in a few of the old Hebrew Appochrypha (which the early Christian church threw out), read the New Testament in Greek, study the Hindu Vedas, read the Jewish Torah, study the Dharma of Buddha, study the Shinto ceremonies, do a sweat lodge with a real Medicine Man and then participate in a Lakota Sun Dance and then read the Koran . . . well, it aint seamless but the religions of the world have many similarities and common themes.
As to my personal beliefs . . . I believe we as a species have not quite yet evolved from man to human beings. Just my ni-yen.
Diatribe over for today ;-)
Best Regards,
Gary Gabelhouse
I fully agree with Suz!
I am a Buddhist which I believe like the basic tenets of most faiths teaches me to first :do good as much as I can and avoid harming other sentient beings. Second: I work to resolve my inner greed and disatisfactions which are the source of most suffering. Mental suffering is most often from desiring what isn't good for us and is unnecesary to life such as lust. 90% of the patients I see suffer physical illnesses (suffering) from being couch potatoes, smoking, eating too much of anything, and too much alcohol or similar stuff. They are totally turned inward to the "ME" world.
As for meat, I rarely eat it but it's for other reasons than my faith. Meat is unnecessary in the diet no matter how big one is. I do eat a lot of dairy and eggs, but kost of my protien comes from beans, nuts, soy stuff.
But I believe each person must walk their own path, I just help if I can when their path gets bumpy.
I am a Buddhist which I believe like the basic tenets of most faiths teaches me to first :do good as much as I can and avoid harming other sentient beings. Second: I work to resolve my inner greed and disatisfactions which are the source of most suffering. Mental suffering is most often from desiring what isn't good for us and is unnecesary to life such as lust. 90% of the patients I see suffer physical illnesses (suffering) from being couch potatoes, smoking, eating too much of anything, and too much alcohol or similar stuff. They are totally turned inward to the "ME" world.
As for meat, I rarely eat it but it's for other reasons than my faith. Meat is unnecessary in the diet no matter how big one is. I do eat a lot of dairy and eggs, but kost of my protien comes from beans, nuts, soy stuff.
But I believe each person must walk their own path, I just help if I can when their path gets bumpy.
Lotussan
I Belong To Steven
Great post BTW...
I see you mentioned lust, I know it's a poison according to Buddhism, but I think there is a big difference in wanting to express your love for someone on a very deep and special level, and just having lust for someone...
Also I think for someone who has never experienced such things as physical love, there is some deep curiosity there, and I think that is natural, and nothing to be ashamed of...
That curiousity will probably be there until such an experience has been fulfilled...
I also don't think that very special feelings for one person would nessecarily even be felt for others, because these special feelings may not be on a strict sheerly physical level, this would be generalizing ones feeling as lust in all cases...
But that is just my opinion...
Regardless, I don't think that anyone should condemn another for anything that they are feeling, because they may not quite see the big picture, just maybe we should try to help said person understand their feelings better, or help them walk on their bumpy path (as you describe it) a little more smoothly...
I agree with you that meat probably isn't ever needed, and I too eat a lot of eggs and dairy...I think that my diet is much healthier since giving up meat (well, I had seafood twice) but still lacking from a bit of ignorance on my part...Also I love junk food and sugar, hehehe...I am quite the couch potato as well, sigh, although thankfully I don't drink or smoke...
Metta...
I see you mentioned lust, I know it's a poison according to Buddhism, but I think there is a big difference in wanting to express your love for someone on a very deep and special level, and just having lust for someone...
Also I think for someone who has never experienced such things as physical love, there is some deep curiosity there, and I think that is natural, and nothing to be ashamed of...
That curiousity will probably be there until such an experience has been fulfilled...
I also don't think that very special feelings for one person would nessecarily even be felt for others, because these special feelings may not be on a strict sheerly physical level, this would be generalizing ones feeling as lust in all cases...
But that is just my opinion...
Regardless, I don't think that anyone should condemn another for anything that they are feeling, because they may not quite see the big picture, just maybe we should try to help said person understand their feelings better, or help them walk on their bumpy path (as you describe it) a little more smoothly...
I agree with you that meat probably isn't ever needed, and I too eat a lot of eggs and dairy...I think that my diet is much healthier since giving up meat (well, I had seafood twice) but still lacking from a bit of ignorance on my part...Also I love junk food and sugar, hehehe...I am quite the couch potato as well, sigh, although thankfully I don't drink or smoke...
Metta...
Lotussan
I Belong To Steven
Oh, I see, must have missed her post...
Did I mention that I was personally seeking something?
As far as Sensei's path is concerned, I am sure it
is none of our business, but as fans we are curious
about all facets of his life, hopefully he understands
that we aren't trying to intrude, but rather we are trying to
understand and embrace him, as a very unique and very facinating man...
Did I mention that I was personally seeking something?
As far as Sensei's path is concerned, I am sure it
is none of our business, but as fans we are curious
about all facets of his life, hopefully he understands
that we aren't trying to intrude, but rather we are trying to
understand and embrace him, as a very unique and very facinating man...
ORANGATUANG
Wildfire
Lotussan,what is "BTW" or who is "BTW" Amos did tell me once but i have forgotten..
tora
Funmaker
yudansha said:
What I'm saying is that the conservative science is moving in one direction only and the conservative religious groups along with that,but once someone presents a new vision,those conservative sharks will eat him alive.
But I think it's time to move on.Well,in fact no one denies evolution and there in fact has been evolution but the point is that do those fossils point at exactly what they're stating?Assumptions maybe,some theories?
And regarding the Bible and any other religious sources,I somehow I don't think they're just fairytales.All of them contain some information,some knowledge about the distant past and once you can't prove it wrong ( as you don't have access to all those sources) you can't deny a possibility of a new vision.
It's considered that people descended from the apes but there has been another theory offered by Rudolf Steiner which is stating that the apes have descended from human beings...Another assumption,you say?
But I'm pretty sure we still don't know too many things.
But what the heck was it abouy?Buddhism?Well,I guess unless you're a Buddhist yourself it makes no sense to speculate on this.