what is buddhism evidence of reincarnation?
-
I take issue with this statement. I do not think this is the majority view in the scientific community. Not that the majority view is always right. The key feature of science is that it allows for major paradigm shifts in the face of evidence. I don't think this paradigm shift has occured.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:In the past, the understanding that brain = consciousness would have been valid. In modern times, this understanding no longer stands.
Young Earth Creationists also claim there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is 6000 years old. They claim that dinosaurs walked with man and that Noah actually did exist and he managed to squeeze all the animals on the earth into the Ark. They have all kinds of evidence and theories that 'prove' in. However their views fly in the face of an overwhelming majority. -
spend about 15 mintues reading roughly on
1)A QUANTUM MECHANICAL MODEL OF THE BRAIN AND CONSCIOUSNESS
2)scientific acceptability of rebirth
past life therapy, recall of past experiences, child prodigy are evidences of rebirth
these are the things i recall
let me place my opinions....
to quote what a famous guy say, extraordinary claims must have extraordinary evidence....
let me give examples of few evidences which will be what i call convincing.
First, get a person on national television, this person has to claim that he is a actually reincarnated from a dead guy 20 years ago. Next, get the dead guy sons and daughter. The dead guy before his death was let say 70 yrs old. and his daughter and son was 15 years old when he was 40 years old. therefore, at age 15 years old, the daughter and sons have more clear memories of their interactions with their father for a period of 25 years.
This man who claim to have rebirth , then have to have many many examples of memories which these daughters and sons can recall as the same thing and infact hold a conversation recollecting the past events. their conversation would be able to last for hours and hours as they talked about it.
If there are a number of such cases, and is shown on television, joined in by relatives, out of the few billions people on earth now, there this is what i call a strong and convincing evidence. this kind of evidence is what will cause paradigm shift in the attitudes of scientist.
The weaker and not so convincing the evidence as mentioned by mouth and stories, the less motivation is there for science to veer its course of research.
as i said again, extraordinary claims require extradordinray evidences. -
lets face it, if there are such a case that i mention, the media of television will not let go of the opportunity to broadcast such cases because it will definitely draw in many many viewers....
such example is so good to broadcast and can last so long that it is highly suitable for media broadcasting, with all the showing of passports, the live telecsat of reincarnated guy talking with dead man sons and relatives... -
Agree with january.Originally posted by january:lets face it, if there are such a case that i mention, the media of television will not let go of the opportunity to broadcast such cases because it will definitely draw in many many viewers....
such example is so good to broadcast and can last so long that it is highly suitable for media broadcasting, with all the showing of passports, the live telecsat of reincarnated guy talking with dead man sons and relatives... -
Slightly off topic:
David Chalmers is a philospher that has examined the nature of consiousness.
His papers can be found here. -
January,
I do agree with your two points:
1. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
2. Testimonial evidence is usually very weak.
However, I think the point of the paper is simply to suggest that quantum mechanical phenomena such as quantum entanglement and superposition may form a basis of an explanation of consciousness. It also uses the 'action at a distance' properties of quantum entanglement to try to explain phenomena like telepathy.
So before we examine the issue of reincarnation in this context, we should first ask, "is consiousness a quantum phenomena?"
Currently, I do not think there has been any peer-reviewed study of this - probably because the hypothesis is not currently falsifiable.
As David Chalmbers rightly points out, just because we don't understand quantum mechanics, and we also don't understand consiousness, it doesn't mean they have anything in common.
On the topic of consiousness, I have a few questions that I hope someone will be able to help answer:
1. When does the consiousness enter the body?
2. Why does reincarnation seem to occur more often in some cultures than others?
3. Is consiousness created? The population is growing at an extremely rapid rate. Since very few people attain enlightenment, I assume that most souls are reincarnated. So the growth in population is composed of new consiousness?
4. Is it possible to induce a near death experience or an out of body experience? There are a number of people who claim to be able to perform astral projection but I think it's safe to say that it doesn't work. I should think it is fairly simple to test if out of body experiences are real or if it's more similar to dreaming where the mind creates the experience based on previous knowledge. It strikes me that this is fairly easy to test in controlled conditions. It should be a double blind study. Put the subject in a room and induce an out of body experience. Put an object in a second room. Both the experimenter and the subject should not know what the object is. After the subject returns to his body, ask the subject to describe in specific detail what the object is.
I suspect this has never happened. If it did and it was repeatable, I'm sure we would have heard about it. -
1. Consciousness, does not "enters" a body if you look at it objectively. It would be more scientifically correct to say that consciousness "grows". As the "brain" evolved, it became more and more "conscious". In humans and great apes, we say that these creatures are not only conscious, they are "self-conscious".Originally posted by Phaze:On the topic of consiousness, I have a few questions that I hope someone will be able to help answer:
1. When does the consiousness enter the body?
2. Why does reincarnation seem to occur more often in some cultures than others?
3. Is consiousness created? The population is growing at an extremely rapid rate. Since very few people attain enlightenment, I assume that most souls are reincarnated. So the growth in population is composed of new consiousness?
4. Is it possible to induce a near death experience or an out of body experience? There are a number of people who claim to be able to perform astral projection but I think it's safe to say that it doesn't work. I should think it is fairly simple to test if out of body experiences are real or if it's more similar to dreaming where the mind creates the experience based on previous knowledge. It strikes me that this is fairly easy to test in controlled conditions. It should be a double blind study. Put the subject in a room and induce an out of body experience. Put an object in a second room. Both the experimenter and the subject should not know what the object is. After the subject returns to his body, ask the subject to describe in specific detail what the object is.
I suspect this has never happened. If it did and it was repeatable, I'm sure we would have heard about it.
When you are "self-conscious" you want to be "better" than others, for example.
At the present it is very easy to look at brain circuits (using MRI) to see how the brain is conscious of "heat" for example.
You monitor someone's brain using MRI and you can see how the brain knows that something is hot. You can see the same circuits in every human brain.
What is not known at the moment is how you know or experience "fear".
or how humans know that something is "red"
If you follow the brain circuits when light of certain wave length hits your eyes, you will notice that it does not matter which wave length of light is hitting your eyes.
It follows the same circuits in your brain.
Yet people can say... Red! Blue! Green!....
How in the world do people know it is Red or Blue or Green? -
Good point. I was just reading about that although I must confess I don't quite understand it it yet.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
or how humans know that something is "red"
If you follow the brain circuits when light of certain wave length hits your eyes, you will notice that it does not matter which wave length of light is hitting your eyes.
It follows the same circuits in your brain.
Yet people can say... Red! Blue! Green!....
How in the world do people know it is Red or Blue or Green?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
It's related to what David Chalmbers described as the "hard problem of consiousness".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
Setting aside the question of how we can have subjective qualitative experiences in the first place, I think we know something is red, blue or green because we basically agree that's what it is. Red, blue or green is just a descriptor. I often argue with my girlfriend about what constitutes 'pink'. I think the 'pink' ipod doesn't look 'pink' to me.
I think it's possible that all of us experience colour in different ways. Our perception of colour may be slightly different. However, it doesn't matter as long as each of us is able to recognize and agree the colour for what it is. We may experience colour differently, but as long as we experience it consistently, we are able to agree to call it 'red'.
Mentally ill people or people on psychotropic drugs may have inconsistent experiences. If you ask them what colour they are looking at, they may tell you it's red one minute, and blue the next.
If they recognize the fact that their perception is unreliable, they may choose to ask someone else what colour it is and trust the other person who tells them the colour is 'red'. -
You misunderstand the whole "hard problem of consciousness" problem.Originally posted by Phaze:Good point. I was just reading about that although I must confess I don't quite understand it it yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
It's related to what David Chalmbers described as the "hard problem of consiousness".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
Setting aside the question of how we can have subjective qualitative experiences in the first place, I think we know something is red, blue or green because we basically agree that's what it is. Red, blue or green is just a descriptor. I often argue with my girlfriend about what constitutes 'pink'. I think the 'pink' ipod doesn't look 'pink' to me.
I think it's possible that all of us experience colour in different ways. Our perception of colour may be slightly different. However, it doesn't matter as long as each of us is able to recognize and agree the colour for what it is. We may experience colour differently, but as long as we experience it consistently, we are able to agree to call it 'red'.
Mentally ill people or people on psychotropic drugs may have inconsistent experiences. If you ask them what colour they are looking at, they may tell you it's red one minute, and blue the next.
If they recognize the fact that their perception is unreliable, they may choose to ask someone else what colour it is and trust the other person who tells them the colour is 'red'.
The problem is not that people know that something is red. The problem is "how" . "How" do people know that something is red so that they can agree to it?
If the answer is: "Well we all agree that it is red" then it would not be a "hard problem of consciousness" would it? -
You make an interesting point that consciousness develops. So what you are saying is that consciousness develops from nothing?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:1. Consciousness, does not "enters" a body if you look at it objectively. It would be more scientifically correct to say that consciousness "grows". As the "brain" evolved, it became more and more "conscious". In humans and great apes, we say that these creatures are not only conscious, they are "self-conscious".
I'll try to explain further what I'm trying to get at. I probably haven't thought this through enough so please forgive and correct my errors.
Consciousness is either an emergent property of the physical body (eg. the brain) or it is independant of the body.
If consciousness is independant of the physical body, then at some point, the spark of consciousness (I don't think it has to be fully developed consciousness) must enter the body. The problem I see here is that there must be a source of these sparks.
If consciousness is dependant on the physical form, and it is an emergent phenomena (like in the game of life), we must then conclude that the number of conscious beings is forever increasing especially if you believe that consciousness can survive beyond death.
On the topic of reincarnation, how would a being be reincarnated? Is it a competition like millions of sperm trying to hit an egg? So in some cases, a 'new' spark might endow a body with consciousness, and in other case, an 'old' spark manages to reincarnate?
Or perhaps the 'old' being takes over the physical body and prevents the original consiousness from developing?
Or the reincarnated consciousness merges with the newly formed consciousness to produce something different? -
Exactly. That's what I said. I said I don't yet understand the hard problem of consciousness.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You misunderstand the whole "hard problem of consciousness" problem.
The problem is not that people know that something is red. The problem is "how" . "How" do people know that something is red so that they can agree to it?
If the answer is: "Well we all agree that it is red" then it would not be a "hard problem of consciousness" would it?
That's why I said "setting aside the question on how we can have subjective qualitative experiences in the first place." I was simply addressing the statement about how we know something is red without addressing the issue of perception.
So you understand the "hard problem of consiousness"? And you believe you have the answer? -
That's why buddhists say rebirth instead of reincarnation isn't it?
-
its good to bring him in. he is expert and this will link us to more technical and academic and chim stuff.Originally posted by Phaze:Slightly off topic:
David Chalmers is a philospher that has examined the nature of consiousness.
His papers can be found here.
i have saved his website also, basically he is a philosophy and some psychology professor. -
Originally posted by Phaze:
Not necessarily.. I think the current evidence and testimonial evidence is not 'weak' but it is just not that well published nor easily acceptable within Western cultures yet (due to their judeo-christian beliefs and so on). There are media reports on them, there are interviews and stuff like that on news agency, but hour long interview I think is not feasible, maybe in future they will do one. I do look forward to something like that.
January,
I do agree with your two points:
1. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
2. Testimonial evidence is usually very weak.However, I think the point of the paper is simply to suggest that quantum mechanical phenomena such as quantum entanglement and superposition may form a basis of an explanation of consciousness. It also uses the 'action at a distance' properties of quantum entanglement to try to explain phenomena like telepathy.
Yes.. anyway this might be of interest, see my second last post in agnosticism, and the article The Universe as a Hologram - Holographic Reality
So before we examine the issue of reincarnation in this context, we should first ask, "is consiousness a quantum phenomena?"
Currently, I do not think there has been any peer-reviewed study of this - probably because the hypothesis is not currently falsifiable.
As David Chalmbers rightly points out, just because we don't understand quantum mechanics, and we also don't understand consiousness, it doesn't mean they have anything in common.On the topic of consiousness, I have a few questions that I hope someone will be able to help answer:
Upon conception. Of course actually speaking consciousness is not an entity that moves around from one place to another or 'enters' the body... only in relative conventionally we speak like that but it can be really misleading. Consciousness is a conditional-wave-like-process. As a matter fact the difference between the Buddhist understanding and Hindu's understanding of rebirth is here. Hindu's understanding is reincarnation of the soul, while in Buddhism, consciousness is not a soul or a self, but a conditional-wave-like-process and is everchanging - means ceases the moment it arises and conditions the next moment.
1. When does the consiousness enter the body?2. Why does reincarnation seem to occur more often in some cultures than others?
India had a stronger meditative tradition of yogis who had abilities to recall past lives. Other cultures probably had, in fact it's not very rare, but also probably some did not dare to speak up due to strong judeo-christian influence.3. Is consiousness created? The population is growing at an extremely rapid rate. Since very few people attain enlightenment, I assume that most souls are reincarnated. So the growth in population is composed of new consiousness?
Consciousness is not created. In Buddhism, nothing is ever created and there is no agent that can produce anything. The concept of a Creator God is rejected by the Buddha (see Questions About buddhism, 25 February 2007 · 02:14 AM) But it is even deeper than that... there isn't even a truly existing agent or Self that is doing anything..! When your Buddhist insight practise deepens you will start to discover that there is no, cannot be any, Doer of an action. For example, there is no fixed permanent thinker behind thinking -- only thoughts arising and passing at lightning speed with the previous thought causing an subtle imprint wrongly misinterpreted to be the continuity of a 'Self'! This is all happening at lightning speed and requires very deep meditative clarity to see it. Everything is just spontaneous-arising out of conditions, an ever-changing process, not caused by some fixed agent or entity. See this article written by Longchen in my forum who is one of the highly enlightened practitioners who post there.. http://www.dreamdatum.com/doer-beingdone.html. -
{double post}
-
i not clear about some of the things you all are talking.
i read before abit only on quantum and consciousness. something like does consciousness occur on atomic level?
Anyway, i just like to contribute soemthing i read before. its about two terms. existence and consciousness.
spiritual people tend to say that consciousness is primary. however, in the philo website, it says that existence is primary, consciousness is secondary.
existence leads to consciousness, not the other way around. matter must exist first. assuming a evolution theory, before life was formed, there was matter only like stars.
From laymen point of view, i would first say that stars dun have consciousness,because of some of the arguments which seems to say that non living thing has consciousness also, which i disagree.
These stars exist but no consciouness. consciousness is probably a product of biology life. I find that people are also misinterpretating some of the research that scientist are doing on consciouness and using them wrongly to suppor their whatever belief they are holding.
To me, its quite straightforward thought i have no proof, that consciouness is just a culmulative effect of the minds, the eyes, the sensations, the movement, the awarness, the memory which is all working inter-dependently.
with death, these function cease, and as a life form, the body and consciousness no longer exist.
Finally, i put in the third theory against the theory of consciousness surving after the death. So called self, identity, awareness and consciousness is just a ego which requires the existence of memory and some other function. Look at a elderly who suffer from alzehimer diease. Does his ego or his former self still existing? he can eat and move and talk gibberish, you may say that he still conscious. But without memory, the ego of his former is no longer left.
he cannot talk about his past with his children. his ego has ended, but not his physical body. therefore, this should suppor that ego and so called 'me' is just the product of physical body. i thought this was a great evidence that should tell us that there is no conscious 'self' or 'me' that survives the death of the physical body -
(continued)
Back to topic. Since there is no agent or a personal Creator or entities or self, the entire process of consciousness is only Conditionality. In fact, Consciousness like I said above is not even an entity or a Self, it is a process, spontaneous-arising-conditionality. What does this mean? This means Interdependent Co-Arising, which is a very important teaching in Buddhism. Dependent Origination, in fact, is the basis of the teaching of Emptiness in Buddhism! Emptiness is not a void, when Buddhism speaks of emptiness, they are in fact speaking about the nature of dependent origination and because of dependent origination there is nothing that has 'substance' or 'inherent existence' -- they are interdependent conditioned co-arising.
And because to go even deeper... the nature of consciousness and the nature of universe is emptiness, it is non-local, there is no 'who', no 'where', 'when', etc, it is possible for non-local activities such as 'supernatural activities' such as astral travelling to some faraway realms, telepathy, ability to hear regardless of distance, or like the Aspect experiment as stated in the Holographic Theory article Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. (This is, That is) -- Buddha never taught time & space, only conditions are required,. It is like how the Net of Indra describes it -- a change in one node reflects upon countless millions of other nodes each reflecting upon each other.
The principle of conditionality in Buddhism:
When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.
Sorry, now back to topic.
What are the 12 interdependent links leading to rebirth?http://www.dhammadana.org/en/dhamma/paticca_samuppada.htm
Your question about population rising can be explained by the fact that in Buddhism, there are countless universes rather than our own planet earth. Beings from other planes of existence (there are 31 planes of existence) including animal or some other realms, or some other extraterrestrial places, can take rebirth in our planet as humans. Then there may be the question, when did consciousness ever started? The answer would be: Consciousness never was born. Or you may say: Consciousness arises and ceases simultaneously. Precisely it is empty in nature, consciousness is not an agent that persists in time. Then there are those who still didn't get it who asks.. what is the first point where consciousness conditions began?
The twelve links of interdependent origination
* Dependent on ignorance (avijjá) mental formations...
* ... arise.
* From mental formations (saýkhárá), rebirth consciousness arises.
* Consciousness (viññá�a) gives rise to mental and physical phenomena.
* From mental and physical phenomena (náma rúpa), the spheres of the six senses arise.
* From the spheres of the six senses (sa¦áyatana), contact arises.
* Contact (phassa) causes sensation.
* Sensation (vedaná) leads to craving.
* From craving (ta�há), attachment results.
* Attachment (upádána) produces becoming.
* From becoming (bhava) birth arises.
* Finally, birth (játi) leads to decay (jará), death (mara�aµ), grief (soka), lamentation (parideva), pain (dukkha), sorrow (domanassa), despair (upáyása).
In this way the whole mass of suffering arises.
In reverse order...
* By the complete cessation of ignorance...
* ... mental formations cease.
* By the complete cessation of mental formations, consciousness ceases.
* By the complete cessation of consciousness, mental and physical phenomena cease.
* By the complete cessation of mental and physical phenomena, the spheres of the six senses cease.
* By the complete cessation of the spheres of the six senses, the contact ceases.
* By the complete cessation of the contact, the sensation ceases.
* By the complete cessation of the sensation, craving ceases.
* By the complete cessation of craving, attachment ceases.
* By the complete cessation of attachment, becoming ceases.
* By the complete cessation of becoming, birth ceases.
* By the complete cessation of birth, decay, death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, despair (dukkha) cease.
Such is the complete cessation of this whole mass of suffering.
http://www.mahindarama.com/e-library/whybuddhism2.html
"To those who talked about the first cause of this world, the Buddha responded by saying that it is impossible to find a first cause since everything is changing, interdependent and conditioned by other things. Something that acts as the cause in the present may become the effect in the future. Later that same effect may again become the cause. Such phenomenon continues ad infinitum. It is called the universal law of Anicca or impermanency.”
You can also visualise consciousness as waves on the great ocean -- the waves being uncountable in number, and the great ocean is our primordial unmanifest Source, which is not separated from the manifest. It does not make sense asking 'when did that little wave in that ocean began'? There is really no beginning actually, because 'waves' do not exist as an independent separate entity, but often they ignorantly believe themselves to be, and bcos of this conditions "his" own rebirth again and again. The winds of ignorance forms waves on the ocean, all these are conditionality.
See: http://www.dreamdatum.com/ripples.html (Ripples on the surface of the Source)
...The impression of there being a 'me/self' interacting with the environment and others can be compared to the ripples on the surface of Being. The ripples can be liken to individuals/selves. The ripples are the perceptions of sensorial and thought experiences. Different beings/individuals will have different experiences that are dependent on their sense characteristics. Being/Absolute can be liken to the entirety which is the vast ocean...4. Is it possible to induce a near death experience or an out of body experience? There are a number of people who claim to be able to perform astral projection but I think it's safe to say that it doesn't work. I should think it is fairly simple to test if out of body experiences are real or if it's more similar to dreaming where the mind creates the experience based on previous knowledge. It strikes me that this is fairly easy to test in controlled conditions. It should be a double blind study. Put the subject in a room and induce an out of body experience. Put an object in a second room. Both the experimenter and the subject should not know what the object is. After the subject returns to his body, ask the subject to describe in specific detail what the object is.
Astral travelling is a skill that can be mastered. It can be done over and over again by focusing. Buddhism, however, do not emphasise on these things.
I suspect this has never happened. If it did and it was repeatable, I'm sure we would have heard about it.[/b] -
The reason is this:Originally posted by Omniknight:That's why buddhists say rebirth instead of reincarnation isn't it?
Life (Self) is nothing other than the continuous flow of the Now Moment.
The Now Moment ceases as it arises. This moment must completely ceased
and serves as the CAUSE for the next moment to arise.
Therefore Self is a process of series Self1, Self2, Self3, Self4, Self5, Self6...etc
A fixed entity 'Self' does not exist, what really exists is a momentary Self.
Under deep meditation, one is able to observe and sense the karmic and mental factors from moment to moment,
it is these factors that are succeeded from moment to moment and life and life but not a fixed entity.
When the karmic and mental factors subsides, it is known as "The True and Only (and Inherently egoless) Conscious Light (Itself)".
- Thusness, another highly enlightened/experienced practitioner from my forum.. -
to draw a clearer picture, lets trace a human life from baby.
baby, has little memory cells and a developing brain. the physical body exist first.
as he grows, he learn language and experience things in life. all these memories and skills , and names , add together to form what we call 'me'.
now as a kid or teen, he exist both physically and with a mentally with ego.
Ego has stable and transient properties, changing over time due to internal factors and external environments.
This should give us an idea by then that mental self comes from brain, memory, behavior of the person, with the physical as a base and necessity place to old the identity.
the person grow old, lose memory due to mental diseases, as shown by evidences of all mental patients in the world, there is no coherent self and 'me' that family members and relatives and friends can recognise in the person.
This is thus the evidence that the person self is more or less gone. mental disease, i am not clear about the details should involve the death of some important brain structure cells and comopnents. This show that changes in physical structure cause the 'me' to dissappear , thus another evidence that 'mental' comes from 'physical'
what is left of mental patient is some basic mental self unlike that of a normal person. the mental patient physical body is still alive still with all his cells breathing oxygen. With the self already gone, why would anyone think that upon the decaying of the body, for some reason the self will be resuscitated.
therefore, i feel kinda of weird when people use quantum and consiousness research information to suggest that the possiblity of 'me' that never dies.
I was awed and overwhelmed when i read the argument of how the mad people argument is clear explanation that there is no consciousness and 'me' after death of physical body because it was so convincing and so irritating clear that i am not going to have a rebirth or have heaven to go -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
i am quite amazed by some of the buddhism theories which supporters can have some much explanations of their beliefs and so many detailed theories and they are so convinced about their explanations and reasoning
The reason is this:
Life (Self) is nothing other than the continuous flow of the Now Moment.
The Now Moment ceases as it arises. This moment must completely ceased
and serves as the CAUSE for the next moment to arise.
[b]Therefore Self is a process of series Self1, Self2, Self3, Self4, Self5, Self6...etc
A fixed entity 'Self' does not exist, what really exists is a momentary Self.
Under deep meditation, one is able to observe and sense he karmic and mental factors from moment to moment,
it is these factors that are succeeded from moment to moment and life and life but not a fixed entity.
When the karmic and mental factors subsides, it is known as "The True and Only (and Inherently egoless) Conscious Light (Itself)".
- Thusness, another highly enlightened/experienced practitioner from my forum..[/b]
although i totally do not see much propering reasoning and convinciblity in their explanations. -
Thank you for sharing Eternal.
I would like to mention what I thought was an interesting discussion on the Doctrine of No-self by Dr Charles Goodman, professor of eastern philosophy at Binghamton University.
I must say I was quite impressed by the argument he presented.
You can download and listen to it at http://media.libsyn.com/media/infidelguy/Tape384_Charles_Goodman_The_Doctrine_of_No_Self.mp3
Apparently, there is another recording where he discussed Buddhism and the Buddhist's rejection of the existence of God but I don't think it's available yet. -
Got to go.. will reply more when I have the time.
Thanks, will take note.Originally posted by Phaze:Thank you for sharing Eternal.
I would like to mention what I thought was an interesting discussion on the Doctrine of No-self by Dr Charles Goodman, professor of eastern philosophy at Binghamton University.
I must say I was quite impressed by the argument he presented.
You can download and listen to it at http://media.libsyn.com/media/infidelguy/Tape384_Charles_Goodman_The_Doctrine_of_No_Self.mp3
Apparently, there is another recording where he discussed Buddhism and the Buddhist's rejection of the existence of God but I don't think it's available yet.
-
This is not just a belief, this is a reality that you can observe every moment, and at one point become enlightened to.Originally posted by january:i am quite amazed by some of the buddhism theories which supporters can have some much explanations of their beliefs and so many detailed theories and they are so convinced about their explanations and reasoning
although i totally do not see much propering reasoning and convinciblity in their explanations. -
Haha. That's what makes us human I guess. We can all look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.Originally posted by january:i am quite amazed by some of the buddhism theories which supporters can have some much explanations of their beliefs and so many detailed theories and they are so convinced about their explanations and reasoning
although i totally do not see much propering reasoning and convinciblity in their explanations.
Christians look at the world around us and see God in everything.
Buddhists look at the world around us and and see we are inter-connected with all things.
Atheists look at the world around us and say that we don't know... yet.
Speaking as an atheist, I think it goes back to the fundamental question - is science the only way we can know about the world around us.
Buddhists may argue that what they do is a science. Their conclusions are based on observation. It's just a science that is different from what we are familiar with.
Even David Chalmers (I apologize for mis-spelling his name before) argues that conscious experience might be a fundamental feature (much like spacetime, mass and charge) that is irreducible to anything more basic.
Perhaps one day, we will come to realize the mechanism by which Buddhists come to their enlightenment and we will realize that they were right all along. Until we come to understand that mechanism though or at least be able to describe it and make predictions. I find it difficult to accept it without that understanding though.
I think we can draw an analogy to quantum mechanics. Our understanding of quantum mechanics is almost certainly wrong. However, there's no theory more successful in describing what happens in the world of the very small so we use it. You can make testable hypothesis with quantum theory. This is where I think buddhism is lacking.
Christian apologists have their whole set of arguments. I recently attended an apologetics session sponsored by Ravi Zacharias Ministries featuring G. Gonzalez and J. Richardson. If truth is measured by the number of books written about it, Christianity wins hands down.
I cannot accept Christianity though. Perhaps it is because I am too familiar with it. Christianity is too logically inconsistent for it to make sense to me.
But I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we all believe what we believe for a reason. The difference is what we consider good reasons. Obviously, I think my reasons are the best ones!
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
By killing AEN, all AEN's suffering ceases.
(continued)
Back to topic. Since there is no agent or a personal Creator or entities or self, the entire process of consciousness is only Conditionality. In fact, Consciousness like I said above is not even an entity or a Self, it is a process, spontaneous-arising-conditionality. What does this mean? This means Interdependent Co-Arising, which is a very important teaching in Buddhism. Dependent Origination, in fact, is the basis of the teaching of Emptiness in Buddhism! Emptiness is not a void, when Buddhism speaks of emptiness, they are in fact speaking about the nature of dependent origination and because of dependent origination there is nothing that has 'substance' or 'inherent existence' -- they are interdependent conditioned co-arising.
And because to go even deeper... the nature of consciousness and the nature of universe is emptiness, it is non-local, there is no 'who', no 'where', 'when', etc, it is possible for non-local activities such as 'supernatural activities' such as astral travelling to some faraway realms, telepathy, ability to hear regardless of distance, or like the Aspect experiment as stated in the Holographic Theory article Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. (This is, That is) -- Buddha never taught time & space, only conditions are required,. It is like how the Net of Indra describes it -- a change in one node reflects upon countless millions of other nodes each reflecting upon each other.
The principle of conditionality in Buddhism:
[b]When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.
Sorry, now back to topic.
What are the 12 interdependent links leading to rebirth?
Astral travelling is a skill that can be mastered. It can be done over and over again by focusing. Buddhism, however, do not emphasise on these things.[/b]