what is buddhism evidence of reincarnation?
-
I understand what the hard problem is... why it is hard... not I have solved the hard problem... LOLOriginally posted by Phaze:Exactly. That's what I said. I said I don't yet understand the hard problem of consciousness.
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? -
i have heard of christian apologist recently which is a new term to me.Originally posted by Phaze: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.
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 buddhism relies too much on buddha nature, observation, mediation and is not connecting to much with other disciplines of knowledge.
scientists have work extenzively with many disciplines like historians, geographers, physicts, have try to make use of all technology possible like electron microscope, new mathematics coding .
mathematics, economics, biologist, writiers all cooperate and share information and knowledge because of the interconnectedness of knwoledge.
buddha at that time, is only one person sitting under a tree, thinking and reflecting. he is suspectible to errors with this kind of conditions.
science is not the only way to gain knowledge but it is the best so far among all others. look at chinese medicine, its works in some aspects in treating illness, therefore chinese medicine does contain knowledge.
with regards to buddhism, what achivements have enlightened buddhists produce. they have try to promote peace. but many non buddhist organisation are also promoting peace, so that is nothing new.
its strength is in mediation, but what about its contribution to physics, biology, chemistry, new invention like MSN, blogging, civil engineering and handphone.
science and technology has lead to a vast intergrative effect in knowledge and new inventions while buddhism is still in its mediation field and praying buddhists.
meanwhile, buddhism has ride on the invention created by science like bloggin buddhists, handphone carrying buddhist, and buddhist walking in large shopping centres build by engineers and architects. -
let me talk abt this some more.Originally posted by Phaze: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.
i think i need to clarify one thing again. words are vehicle for transporting our meanings. miscommunication are often in discussion. during our discussion , inevitable i have misunderstand you and vice versa. also, my clarity of explanation is also vague and vice versa.
therefore, words are not perfect thing. bear this in mind.
what is science? a certain component of science is observation and experience.
now, we go to a buddhist, who is mediating. he mediate and mediation is a process. brain undergo certain process as a person mediate. MEdiation leads to a more peaceful and calmer feeling in the person, so this is good.
so the experience of buddhist has lead to calm experience , and therefore the buddhist has learn a new piece of knowledge, about how mediation can calm our body.
in this case, what would a buddhist say, he would attribute the knowledge to buddhism and that it is buddhism which makes him learnt the knowledge.
This is indeed a new knowledge gained just by experiencing and observing. Sometimes experiencing and observing can lead to new knowledge, sometimes it lead to wrong knowledge. therefore if you ask me if science is the only way to gain knowledge, then the answer is no.
but science has the most systematic and rigous mode of gaining knowledge and it is currently intergrating different fields to sharpen its knowledge gaining mechanism.
science and technology has propel human civilisation the most. Definitely, science and technology has but gotten a tiny fraction of all knowledge in universe and out of universe.
put christian, buddhism teaching altogether and ask them to build a space craft to take photos of other planets to give us more knwoledge. can they do it without science and technology? -
Suffering and AEN is not an 'entity', it is empty in nature, no arising nor ceasing. When you say 'Kill AEN' you are assuming that there is an 'AEN' that can die. In ultimate reality, there is no birth and no death. (go read Heart Sutra/Xin Jing and also the thread by January in my forum last year, finding a way to prevent death(See Longchen's post))Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:By killing AEN, all AEN's suffering ceases.
Arising and ceasing in Buddhism is co-dependent-arising-conditionality.
The principle of conditionality taught by Buddha:
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.
HOWEVER, conditionality in Buddhism does not mean there is something truly existing that is causing something else. Also, When Buddhism say Arising and Ceasing, there is no something arising and ceasing, it is Arising and Ceasing happening simultaneously and the next moment of Arising and Ceasing arises completely spontaneously out of conditions. There is Change but no Changing 'thing'.
Interdependent co-arising = emptiness. Therefore Heart Sutra says,2-4-2. There is no existence of the forward and backward cycles of the twelve links of Dependent Origination
Lastly, Nirvana comes through INSIGHTS into the ultimate nature of reality, it does not come through effortfully destroying anything mental or physical -- even defilements and attachments are fundamentally destroyed through Insight and Wisdom. Which is also why Shamatha/concentration itself cannot lead to liberation, and neither can death. Shamatha can only suppress them like a drug but will come back again until one sees its ultimate nature. Neither can death. Through shamatha one can suppress defilements but not get rid of it by pulling the plug -- ignorance.
no ignorance or the ending of ignorance up to
no ageing and death of the ending of ageing and death, -
Originally posted by january:
Since what Buddhism concerns most is about Liberation, about realising the Ultimate Reality (i.e our Buddha Nature, Luminous-Emptiness), other disciplines may not be required (when you are only talking about the fundamental ultimate Insight component). Of course they can help promote Buddhism to the world, that is possible.. and Buddhism can be more intergrated into modern life. Buddhism can make use of modern technologies etc (my forum is an example).
i have heard of christian apologist recently which is a new term to me.
i think buddhism relies too much on buddha nature, observation, mediation and is not connecting to much with other disciplines of knowledge.
scientists have work extenzively with many disciplines like historians, geographers, physicts, have try to make use of all technology possible like electron microscope, new mathematics coding .mathematics, economics, biologist, writiers all cooperate and share information and knowledge because of the interconnectedness of knwoledge.
To be more precise the truths he realised does not come from rational thinking -- it is transcendental, transrational, it requires a direct intuitive experience of the ultimate reality.
buddha at that time, is only one person sitting under a tree, thinking and reflecting. he is suspectible to errors with this kind of conditions.
When Buddhists practise meditation, we practise Mindfulness (such as Mindfulness of Breathing meditation), which means bare awareness. Only with bare awareness of our moment to moment reality will we be able to see through our illusions and realise the Absolute, pure awareness which is empty in nature.science is not the only way to gain knowledge but it is the best so far among all others. look at chinese medicine, its works in some aspects in treating illness, therefore chinese medicine does contain knowledge.
I agree we cannot do away with Science -- Science is now the important thing in the modern world. However, science's benefits are only mundane benefits (such as giving us convenience, increase lifespan, etc). We cannot derive transrational insights from merely working on the rational level. Though Spirituality does not replace Logic and Rationality, we cannot use Logic and Rationality to do Spirituality -- like you cannot use your Physics knowledge to be creative in Art.
with regards to buddhism, what achivements have enlightened buddhists produce. they have try to promote peace. but many non buddhist organisation are also promoting peace, so that is nothing new.
its strength is in mediation, but what about its contribution to physics, biology, chemistry, new invention like MSN, blogging, civil engineering and handphone.
science and technology has lead to a vast intergrative effect in knowledge and new inventions while buddhism is still in its mediation field and praying buddhists.
meanwhile, buddhism has ride on the invention created by science like bloggin buddhists, handphone carrying buddhist, and buddhist walking in large shopping centres build by engineers and architects.
Do read this article written by Longchen:The Limitation of science in dealing with Reality
(to be continued in the next post)
The Limitation of science in dealing with Reality
As Beings, the conventional mind only sees interpretations of Ultimate Reality.
Why is this so? This is because, firstly, sensory data are interpretations (manifested form) of reality. Why are they interpretations and are not the direct experiencing of it (reality)? To illustrate this point let's consider the perception of 2 persons: a color-blind person and one with normal vision. The color-blind person may see images differently from one who is not. So... who is seeing the truth? None. Both are seeing interpretations (manifested form) of the truth. Likewise animals may see and sense things differently from humans.
Sensory data that are being perceived are in turn cognated by the conventional mind. Again, the conventional mind sees interpretations collected by sensory perception. From the sensory data, the conventional mind conceives the information into things, environments and people, etc.
Here's a simplified example to illustrate this point:
By differentiating the changes in colours on the vision sight, the conventional mind cognate edges. Perceiving that the edges are connected, an enclosed area becomes recognised. Next, the enclosed area become perceived as objects, things, entities...
The conventional mind can only theorizes from its interpretations. Science is based on the theory and concepts derived from the conventional mind.
Science is just that... conceptual framework for understanding the dynamics of Ultimate Reality... But it can only theorizes using concepts.
To truly experience Ultimate Reality...one must go beyond thinking (which is theorising) about Reality. We must experience it directly.
From the way that I have written, some people might have the misconceptions that the Source(Reality) is separated from us. This is clearly not so. It is only the conventional discriminating mind that think in terms of separation and duality. However, the conventional discriminating mind itself is not an entity, but is just the dualistic function of cognition.
For your necessary discernment. Thank you for reading. -
And there's something interesting I thought was worth sharing, and will answer your 'science and technology has lead to a vast intergrative effect in knowledge and new inventions while buddhism is still in its mediation field and praying buddhists.' -- Buddha did teach us to be integral in our lives. This is written by an Arhat (in Buddhism arhat = an enlightened, liberated saint), Dharma Dan/Dr. Daniel Ingram,
The Equal Importance of Morality, Concentration, and Insight
Morality, Concentration and Insight are the essential three trainings of Buddhist practice
...I thought it would be fun to envision the Three Trainings as characters and have them critique each other and then talk with each other about ways that they could reinforce each other. I will do this in the form of a short play in one act. While I will exaggerate and dichotomize their issues with each other for comic effect, I do think that each of the points made has some validity. Hopefully, you will see through the humor to the important points being illustrated.
Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, Adobe/.pdf version, by Arhat, Dharma Dan
Curtain opens. Morality, Concentration and Insight are sitting in a bar having a discussion. A large stack of empty shot glasses sits in front of each character.
Morality: You navel gazing, self-absorbed, good-for-nothing freaks! I go out and work hard all day long to make this world fit to live in while you two sit on those sweat covered cushions and cultivate butt-rot! I go out and make good money, keep food in our mouths, a roof over our heads, deal with our stuff, and you go out and spend our money up at that freak-house you call a meditation center when there is important work to be done! I want to work on my tan!
Insight: Who are you calling “self-absorbed?” I can’t be self absorbed by definition! If it wasn’t for me, you would be so stuck in dualistic illusion that you wouldn’t know your ass from your elbow, you conceptually fixated, emotionally mired, bound-up-in-manifestation-looking, twelve sandwich eating…
Concentration: Yeah! And by the way, Mr. Oh-so-worldly, you should learn to lighten up sometimes! Work your fingers to the bone, whaddaya get? Bony fingers. ThatÂ’s what. And that goes for you too, Mr. Enlightenment! If you didnÂ’t have my skills, youÂ’d be shit out of luck, unable to focus, and dead boring to boot! Who brings up the deep joy and wondrous mind states around here? I do, thatÂ’s who, so you two should just shut up!
Insight: Oh, yeah? Well, Mr. La-la Land, if it werenÂ’t for me, weÂ’d be so caught up in your transient highs that we might just get arrested. Somebody call the law! You two are so easily sucked into blowing things out of proportion that without me you two would have all the perspective of a dung heap!
Morality: Dung heap? YouÂ’d be lucky to have a dung heap if it wasnÂ’t for me, you emptiness-fixated, IÂ’m-oh-so-non-conceptual vibration-junkie. What good is having perspective if you donÂ’t go out and use it?
Concentration: Yeah! And speaking of perspective, I give you guys more perspective than you have any idea of. Not only do I provide a bridge between our resident Save-the-world Poster Child and the Void-fixated Flicker-boy, I help you two get your twitchy little minds right! I help the Boy Scout here gain more and deeper insights into his screwed up emotional world and “stuff” than he ever could have on his own, and if it wasn’t for me, Mr. Ultimate would just be spinning his wheels in the parking lot! And further more, I am fun, fun, fun!
Insight: Yeah, maybe, but you donÂ’t know when to stop, you otherworldly space-case! If Relative Man and I hadnÂ’t pulled you out of the clouds, youÂ’d still be lost in some formless realm thinking you had half a clue. IÂ’m the one with the clue! There ainÂ’t nothinÂ’ in the world like what I know, and without it, you twoÂ’s whole pathetic little sense of identity would be bound up in a world beyond your control. I am your salvation, and you know it!
Morality: Beyond my control my ass! I make things happen in this world, great things! IÂ’m the one that really gets us somewhere! I make a difference! Who cares if there is no self when people are starving in Africa?
Insight: Who cares is exactly my point! There is no separate, permanent self that cares!
Morality: “I know you are, but what am I?”
Insight: Exactly!
Morality: Jerk!
Concentration: See? You guys gotta' chill out, get some balance and peace in your life. Take a few moments and just breathe! Leave your worries and cares behind, and fly the friendly skies! ItÂ’s free, legal, and oh-so-recommended. You can quit whenever you like! All your friends are doing it! Come on, just relax!
Morality: All right, Fly Guy, when are we going to deal with our emotional issues, huh? When are we going to save the world? We canÂ’t just go on vacation forever.
Insight: Your problem is that you can’t see the sensations that make up these “issues” as they really are, so you make such a big friggin’ deal out of them. I mean, I see your point, but you are so reactive and blind that you are hardly the one for the job. You solidify these things into huge monsters, forget you have done this, and then freak out when they come running after you. You need a clue, you confused little shrew!
Morality: Oh, yeah! DonÂ’t think that just because you can see the true nature of the issues that make up your reality that you wonÂ’t still have stuff to deal with! Now, thatÂ’s delusion!
Insight: ItÂ’s even more deluded to think that you can really have a completely healthy perspective on anything without me, you Monster Maker!
Concentration: Dude, do you see those angels floating through the wall?
Morality: Where in the Hell did I find you freaks?
Insight: Short memory, eh? You found us when you realized you couldnÂ’t do it on your own. You needed us to really be able to do the job you wanted to do, to really make a difference and be as happy and effective as you could be.
Morality: Yeah? And when can I get rid of you?
Concentration and Insight: When you have mastered us completely. Jinx, one two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten!
Morality: BartenderÂ…
THE END.
If you find that you have gotten to the point when you cannot laugh at your own path, stop immediately and figure out why. I hope you have found this little, irreverent dialogue entertaining. While obviously a bit ridiculous, these sorts of tensions can arise until we really have a solid grasp of each training. When we have this, they will work together as they were meant to.
----------
I will reply the other posts some other time... back to mugging for my exams. -
Oh right.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I understand what the hard problem is... why it is hard... not I have solved the hard problem... LOL
I think it's just a terminology problem again. Probably my fault.
When I use the term "understand a problem", I am thinking it's solved. If you understand a problem, it's not really a problem is it?
I don't think we understand quantum mechanics for example. We use it, but we don't understand it.
But yeah. I think I've been sloppy in how I use the word 'understand'. -
Small correction.... the Calmness component mostly comes from the Shamatha side of meditation, which means the Concentration side. Shamatha meditation can lead to mundane jhanas/absorptions (I have such experiences) which are ridiculously blissful states - more blissful than sex, and seemingly more 'stable' and less 'transient' (though ultimately in nature it is still transient). These are are meditative states that can be mastered, however, they are do not lead to liberation.Originally posted by january:now, we go to a buddhist, who is mediating. he mediate and mediation is a process. brain undergo certain process as a person mediate. MEdiation leads to a more peaceful and calmer feeling in the person, so this is good.
so the experience of buddhist has lead to calm experience , and therefore the buddhist has learn a new piece of knowledge, about how mediation can calm our body.
Calmness does not itself lead to insights and wisdom in Buddhism, it must be done through the Insight part (in Buddhism there are three trainings: Morality, Concentration and Insight). Other religions' meditations are usually about Shamatha meditation (which leads to Samadhi/Jhanas), or Self-Inquiry (which leads to Causal level of awakening, this is another thing). Shamatha however cannot lead to enlightenment... therefore you can gain calmness in Qi Gong or Yoga or etc but not enlightenment.
Concentration in Buddhism however is not a means to an end itself, concentration in Buddhism can develope Jhanas, Samadhi and even Psychic abilities, however, that is not our ultimate aim, and the Shamatha component is merely developed to support Insight practise as without concentration/calmness your mind will be wandering all around and cannot develope insight.
Insight practise requires clarity/awareness/mindfulness, observing moment to moment reality, and in the process observes the 3 characteristics of existence, its luminous-emptiness, etc. -
Logic dictates that when AEN cease to exist, AEN will not be able to suffer.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Lastly, Nirvana comes through INSIGHTS into the ultimate nature of reality, it does not come through effortfully destroying anything mental or physical -- even defilements and attachments are fundamentally destroyed through Insight and Wisdom. Which is also why Shamatha/concentration itself cannot lead to liberation, and neither can death. Shamatha can only suppress them like a drug but will come back again until one sees its ultimate nature. Neither can death. Through shamatha one can suppress defilements but not get rid of it by pulling the plug -- ignorance. -
Like I said there is no 'AEN' to cease at all, there is no inherently existing and fixed "self" that can "born" or "die". This is the important Buddhist teaching of Anatta (Non-self). There is only ever changing conditions moment to moment. During sleep, conditions put your 5 senses at rest, you are in a realm of symbols (dream state) or deep sleep (unconscious) state, which later conditions arise and bring you back to Waking state. No states is more real than another, whether dream, dreamless, or waking, all states are just as it is, they are transient and empty, they arise out of conditions.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Logic dictates that when AEN cease to exist, AEN will not be able to suffer.
During unconsciousness conditions also put 5 senses at rest. These are all mental and karmic conditioning... but these factors do not just cease like that, when there is a cause there has to be an effect... and like Energy doesn't just cease but changes 'forms'. And without the INSIGHTS into the nature of reality, the Defilements and Karmic Tendencies that causes rebirth in Samsara again and again right at this moment (rebirth does not necessarily just mean afterlife but every moment we are reborn) will not be dissolved. Only through Wisdom and Insights the bonds to Ignorance and the 12 interdepedent links are dissolved. Before that one cannot help but be reborn - they are just karmic tendencies, cause & effect. Being reborn and the nature of samsara is to Suffer. And no matter how rich or how royal or how pleasurable your life is, you still suffer -- Suffering in Buddhism is perhaps the most misunderstood thing, which will be another topic if you wish to discuss.
p.s. I was reminded of a famous verse by Chuang Tzu the Taoist mystic (Lao Tzu's successor):
"Once I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly and was happy as a butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I did not know that I was Tzu. Suddenly I awoke, and there was I, visibly Tzu. I do not know whether it was Tzu dreaming that he was a butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that he was Tzu. Between Tzu and the butterfly there must be some distinction. [But one may be the other.] This is called the transformation of things." -
I pretty much answered this post in my reply to herzog above.Originally posted by january: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
Buddhism never taught a fixed inherent existing self, only ever changing conditions (I wrote very clearly above)
It is comfortable with people becoming retarded, or even being reborn as an animal.
Though physical body affects the state of consciousness, consciousness does not equate to physical body. Physical body has sense organs, but organ and consciousness is two different things, and is not constricted to the brain. They are two different domains interrelated in many ways. Like Phaze said, David Chalmes said consciousness is irreducible -- Chalmers claims “physical theories are best suited to explaining why systems have a certain physical structure and how they perform various function…but consciousness…goes beyond the scientific explanation of structure and function.” (Scientific, 95) Here Chalmers asserts that our current science is limited in the structure of its investigational practices.
Chalmers advocates the necessity for a new theory, distinct from physical laws, to close the explanatory gap2 and to solve the hard problems of consciousness. Chalmers argues that a complete final theory of the universe will need to establish consciousness as a fundamental, irreducible component.
-----------------
Another article: http://website.lineone.net/~kwelos/formlessmind.htm
...The fact that the mind is formless means that it is unconstrained, and hence has immense potential. The mind can comprehend all objects including its own creations. The description of the root mind as 'formless' doesn't just refer to its non-physical nature, but it emphasises that it is unlimited, non-mechanistic and totally free from any structure or topology. So it it is free from steps, loops, branches, strings, tables, stacks, queues, datastructures and all the other algorithmic constraints . In Buddhist psychology the root mind is non-physical and non-algorithmic. The mind cannot be understood in terms of circuit diagrams and flowcharts. It is pure awareness....
More another day. -
You said you can't see proper reasoning and convincibility.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.
There is only two possibilities here:
1) I haven't explained myself skillfully enough, which in this case, you can always request that I explain more clearly or ask me
2) You haven't understood what I wrote -
My friend,Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You said you can't see proper reasoning and convincibility.
There is only two possibilities here:
1) I haven't explained myself skillfully enough, which in this case, you can always request that I explain more clearly or ask me
2) You haven't understood what I wrote
I understand that you are eager to share. But I think you have introduced too many concepts at one go. All the material you have posted is quite intimidating.
It's like if I handed you the bible and said, "read it from the beginning to the end, and you will understand Christianity."
We need to be guided in little steps.
You are receiving many questions at one go and you are doing your best to answer all of them. However if a person does not even understand the basics of buddhism, how will the person understand the advanced concepts?
When you teach math, you don't explain calculus right away. Your start with arithmetic and you slowly build up the base of knowledge from there until the person is ready for calculus.
Another point:
You need to take a different approach here than in the Buddhism forum. I would assume that in the Buddhism forum, you are speaking to a largely Buddhist audience who is eager to learn more. They are willing to make the effort to read. More importantly, they have the background and are better equipped to understand what you present.
In this forum, my guess is most people are not interested. They would at most skim through your articles. You need to get each point into a bite sized piece that takes little effort to digest. Your objective is to hook people, and get them interested enough to go to the Buddhism forum to find out more.
Thank you for your patience and effort. It is appreciated. -
But you did not answer my question. My question was why is there no evidence for astral traveling?Originally posted by An Eternal Now: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 know there are many claims of astral traveling and remote viewing. But none in controlled test conditions.
James Randi is a magician who offers a million dollar prize if anyone can prove supernatural ability. It is a very fair test. Test conditions are agreed on by both James Randi and the candidate. The intention is not to humiliate the candidate. Every effort is made to give the candidate every chance to succeed. There are no time limits during the test. The candidate can take as much time as he wants. Every request of the candidate is accommodated as long as it does not violate the test protocol.
Why doesn't someone just take the test? Not for the money but to educate all of us?" -
True.. thanks for the feedbackOriginally posted by Phaze:My friend,
I understand that you are eager to share. But I think you have introduced too many concepts at one go. All the material you have posted is quite intimidating.
It's like if I handed you the bible and said, "read it from the beginning to the end, and you will understand Christianity."
We need to be guided in little steps.
You are receiving many questions at one go and you are doing your best to answer all of them. However if a person does not even understand the basics of buddhism, how will the person understand the advanced concepts?
When you teach math, you don't explain calculus right away. Your start with arithmetic and you slowly build up the base of knowledge from there until the person is ready for calculus.
Another point:
You need to take a different approach here than in the Buddhism forum. I would assume that in the Buddhism forum, you are speaking to a largely Buddhist audience who is eager to learn more. They are willing to make the effort to read. More importantly, they have the background and are better equipped to understand what you present.
In this forum, my guess is most people are not interested. They would at most skim through your articles. You need to get each point into a bite sized piece that takes little effort to digest. Your objective is to hook people, and get them interested enough to go to the Buddhism forum to find out more.
Thank you for your patience and effort. It is appreciated. -
Because it cannot be done.Originally posted by Phaze:But you did not answer my question. My question was why is there no evidence for astral traveling?
I know there are many claims of astral traveling and remote viewing. But none in controlled test conditions.
James Randi is a magician who offers a million dollar prize if anyone can prove supernatural ability. It is a very fair test. Test conditions are agreed on by both James Randi and the candidate. The intention is not to humiliate the candidate. Every effort is made to give the candidate every chance to succeed. There are no time limits during the test. The candidate can take as much time as he wants. Every request of the candidate is accommodated as long as it does not violate the test protocol.
Why doesn't someone just take the test? Not for the money but to educate all of us?" -
Quoted from the same topic in Buddhism forum by member longchen which I agree, though I'm not sure of the background of January
Just an opinion...
Interesting topic...... but gonna become chicken and duck talk
Most people are wholly engaged in symbols and concepts. Atheists are also engaged in the symbolisms associated with 'prove' , 'evidence', 'science' and so on and so forth. I believe January is an engineering or science students if i am not wrong.
The problem is... when we engage in discussions, we also need to use symbols and concepts. So what happened is that, symbolism is actually re-inforced in the discusssion process. Therefore, it is very difficult to convince another.... because the conceptual/symbolic realm is not the place to find the answer.
Duck go quack quack while chicken go kok kok keh... how to understand each other? 
pardon the intrusion... -
Astral travelling is a topic that I am not familiar with, but apparently research has been done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection#ResearchOriginally posted by Phaze:But you did not answer my question. My question was why is there no evidence for astral traveling?
I know there are many claims of astral traveling and remote viewing. But none in controlled test conditions.
James Randi is a magician who offers a million dollar prize if anyone can prove supernatural ability. It is a very fair test. Test conditions are agreed on by both James Randi and the candidate. The intention is not to humiliate the candidate. Every effort is made to give the candidate every chance to succeed. There are no time limits during the test. The candidate can take as much time as he wants. Every request of the candidate is accommodated as long as it does not violate the test protocol.
Why doesn't someone just take the test? Not for the money but to educate all of us?"
You said: I know there are many claims of astral traveling and remote viewing. But none in controlled test conditions.
This is wrong and many researches have been done.
I posted this in Atheism forum previously, both of which are interesting read (there are many more gd websites on these, but I haven't done much research): http://www.amazingabilities.com/
and
Supernormal Powers and Forms of Direct KnowledgeA forum friend told me about Russel Targ just now, it's quite interesting how he explains non-locality and links it with these psychic phenomena. He is looking forward to getting the book 'The End of Suffering', which contains many Buddhist teachings as well. Here's an interview with him, it doesnt answer your questions you asked, but anyway thought you might be interested... http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/rtarg.htm
p.s. Buddhism does not encourage development of supernatural abilities prior to attaining wisdom and enlightenment.. for more information go to my forum.
The End of Suffering
(Running time = 36 mins)
Regina first interviewed Russell Targ almost 21 years ago just before he was leaving for the Soviet Union to take part in an experiment with Brezhnev's psychic healer, in what was to become a well known documentation on the efficacy of remote viewing for military purposes.
Russell Targ is a physicist and author who has devoted much of his professional career to the research of the human capacity for psychic ability. In 1972, he co-founded the Stanford Research Institute's federally-funded program that investigated psychic abilities in humans. The program provided invaluable information and techniques to various government intelligence agencies, including the DIA, the CIA, NASA, and Army Intelligence. In his ten years with the program, Targ co-published his findings in some of the most prestigious scientific journals. He is the co-author, with Jane Katra, of five books about psychic abilities, two of which are: Miracles of Mind: Exploring Non-local Consciousness & Spiritual Healing, and The Heart of the Mind: How to Experience God Without Belief.
Russell was also quite active in the development of the laser and its various applications, having written over fifty articles on advanced laser research. He is a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers and has received two NASA awards for inventions and contributions in laser and laser communications. Recently retiring from his position as senior staff scientist at Lockheed Martin, Russell now devotes his time to ESP research and offering workshops on remote viewing and spiritual healing.
In an abstract from a research paper, Russell said, "Since ancient times spiritual teachers have described paths and practices that a person could follow to achieve health, happiness, and peace of mind. A considerable body of recent research indicates that any kind of spiritual practice is likely to improve ones prognosis for recovering from a serious illness. Many of these approaches to spirituality involve learning to quiet the mind, rather than adhering to a prescribed religious belief. These meditative practices are inherent aspects of Buddhism, Hinduism, mystical Christianity, Kabalistic Judaism, Sufism, and other mystic paths. What is indicated in the subtext of these teachings is that as one learns to quiet his or her mind, one is likely to encounter psychic-like experiences or perceptions. For example, in The Sutras of Patanjali, the Hindu master tells us that on the way to transcendence we may experience many kinds of amazing visions, such as the ability to see into the distance, or into the future; and to diagnose illnesses, and also to cure them. However, we are admonished not to become attached to these abilities - that they are mere phenomena standing as stumbling blocks on the path to enlightenment. In this paper, I will describe my recent experience in teaching remote viewing at three workshops in Italy, in which we emphasize expanded awareness of who we are, rather than an ability to find car keys and parking spaces. Our spiritual approach, did not interfere with all three of these groups demonstrating highly significant remote viewing in a double-blind setting." -
We have to understand that religions are man-made, and are influenced by the collective and individual levels of consiousness of the followers and creators of the religion. For example God in the Old Testament is more of a mythic and magical figure, like an old man you can meet up in heaven to drink coffee with. In New Testament, because of Jesus's level of understanding and mystical experiences of God, the understanding of God in New Testament is further than that.Originally posted by Phaze: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.
The reason why you cannot accept many teachings of Christianity and other religions because your consciousness moved beyond 'mythic' or 'magic' into 'rationality' which is a predominant level of consciousness in the modern world... and Christianity has many elements that still belong to the mythic and magic level, both from authors of the ancient scriptures and some by latter distortions of their own followers who did not have any transcendental experiences, or for political reasons and stuff like that. Many of bible's teachings are also misinterpreted, many are not meant to be literal and have deeper meanings behind them which only someone with transcendental experiences can fully comprehend.
We should also not forget that apart from the 4 gospels in the bible, there are many other gospels in Early Christianity that the early church fathers did not include (due to politics and stuff like that), for example the Gospel of Thomas (a secret teaching by Jesus to Thomas) was written around the same time as the other early gospels, but was not included by the church fathers. That gospel is clearly highly mystical perhaps because it is a discourse to one of his student that is already at a higher level of consciousness, or near there.
I posted in The New Atheism is as Flat as a Pancake -- there are different "worldviews" of God.
I also wrote the various levels of consciousness in that topic:
Like I mentioned, mystical Christianity, Kabbalistic Judaism, Sufi Islam, Taoism (Lao Tzu's teaching however, is beyond causal, which is another topic), Sikhism, Hinduism (esp advaita vedanta), and all the other religions (the contemplative part), ultimately point to the Causal God (I AM THAT I AM) as the ultimate. There is no doubts from Jesus's teachings that he have had transcendental experiences of such nature, however his teachings are often re-interpreted by followers of lower states of consciousness (those who have transcendental experiences will however clearly see the deeper meanings/essence of the bible, etc).Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Based on Ken Wilber's works, there are nine levels of consciousness development of a human being, and one usually progresses as they age until a certain level (but this varies for different people, and usually one does not reach transpersonal levels unless one has done spiritual practises, with a few exceptions). The respective worldviews of those nine general structures of consciousness can be described as: archaic, magic, mythic, rational, aperspectival, psychic (yogic), subtle (saintly), causal (sagely), and nondual (siddha) (Adi Da, 1997; Gebser, 1985; Wilber 1996a, 1996b, 1997a, 2000b). In my forum alone there are at least four persons who posted who have reached the nondual state, which in Buddhism would be considered as the entry point of enlightenment (whereas most other religions stops at the causal, 'I AM' level). There are also several others who posted in my forum who are at the causal level of awakening, including one guy who just created a new topic in this forum.
For me I am not enlightened but have a glimpse of the psychic level of transpersonal or transrational experience (any stages of 'psychic' and above are considered transpersonal/transrational), which does not mean psychic supernatural powers, but rather, a form of unity consciousness where subject and object temporarily ceases, but more of the gross level. However my experience is not an awakening. Only causal and non dual levels are awakening, although only non dual can be considered buddhist enlightenment, and before causal/non dual, all stages are mere experiences or perspectives, not experienced as the everpresent ground reality.
'Supernatural' is a very vague term, and may even refer to magic or mythic level of consciousness.
p.s. those interested to read more should grab the book 'A Brief History of Everything' by Ken Wilber from bookstores or library. interesting read.
All monotheistic religions teaches the path of Submission to God's Will (i.e Islam which literally means 'Submission', and Christianity, etc), but the ultimate understanding of God is not that of a personal God but a transcendental God. This is a mystical path of a transforming Union with God, the submission of self for the causal Christ, as St. Paul says: I no longer live, but Christ lives in me! (Gal. 2.20) (see What is Christian mysticism?)
This is written by a highly enlightened Islamic Sufi mystic about the Sufi path, Prayer, and another article that briefly explains the different paths of Sufi and Buddhism and his experiences with the Buddhist Vipassana meditative practise: Sunyata -
(continued)
What is the Causal God? As Thusness clearly puts it in Is God A Thing?
Occasionally, in these mystical traditions there are those who move beyond the Causal awakening into Nondual enlightenment. For example, my friend Thusness confirms that this Christian mystic, Bernadette Roberts, has moved beyond the Causal level to Nondual enlightenment, though she has not had the deeper realisation of Emptiness: http://www.spiritualteachers.org/b_roberts_interview.htmOriginally posted by Thusness:This is an interesting topic and since it is allowed to discuss more about God in a Buddhism forum, I would like to talk a little more about the experience of 'AMness" in all things.
Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like?
Being free individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going. This "AMness" is “God”. ...Actually, I met up with Buddhism only at the end of my journey, after the no-self experience. Since I knew that this experience was not articulated in our contemplative literature, I went to the library to see if it could be found in the Eastern Religions. It did not take me long to realize that I would not find it in the Hindu tradition, where, as I see it, the final state is equivalent to the Christian experience of oneness or transforming union. If a Hindu had what I call the no-self experience, it would be the sudden, unexpected disappearance of the Atman-Brahman, the divine Self in the "cave of the heart", and the disappearance of the cave as well. It would be the ending of God-consciousness, or transcendental consciousness - that seemingly bottomless experience of "being", "consciousness", and "bliss" that articulates the state of oneness. To regard this ending as the falling away of the ego is a grave error; ego must fall away before the state of oneness can be realized. The no-self experience is the falling away of this previously realized transcendent state.
For a more thorough understanding on the differences between Causal God and Non-Dual realisation, please refer to the third article in Some Writings on Non-duality by Ken Wilber, starting from 'There are many things that I can doubt, but I cannot doubt my own consciousness in this moment.'
Initially, when I looked into Buddhism, I did not find the experience of no-self there either; yet I intuited that it had to be there. The falling away of the ego is common to both Hinduism and Buddhism. Therefore, it would not account for the fact that Buddhism became a separate religion, nor would it account for the Buddhist's insistence on no eternal Self - be it divine, individual or the two in one. I felt that the key difference between these two religions was the no-self experience, the falling away of the true Self, Atman-Brahman. Unfortunately, what most Buddhist authors define as the no-self experience is actually the no-ego experience. The cessation of clinging, craving, desire, the passions, etc., and the ensuing state of imperturbable peace and joy articulates the egoless state of oneness; it does not, however, articulate the no-self experience or the dimension beyond. Unless we clearly distinguish between these two very different experiences, we only confuse them, with the inevitable result that the true no-self experience becomes lost. If we think the falling away of the ego, with its ensuing transformation and oneness, is the no-self experience, then what shall we call the much further experience when this egoless oneness falls away? In actual experience there is only one thing to call it, the "no-self experience"; it lends itself to no other possible articulation.
Initially, I gave up looking for this experience in the Buddhist literature. Four years later, however, I came across two lines attributed to Buddha describing his enlightenment experience. Referring to self as a house, he said, "All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed." And there it was - the disappearance of the center, the ridgepole; without it, there can be no house, no self. When I read these lines, it was as if an arrow launched at the beginning of time had suddenly hit a bulls-eye. It was a remarkable find. These lines are not a piece of philosophy, but an experiential account, and without the experiential account we really have nothing to go on. In the same verse he says, "Again a house thou shall not build," clearly distinguishing this experience from the falling away of the ego-center, after which a new, transformed self is built around a "true center," a sturdy, balanced ridgepole...
Though after speaking so much, I must say that Buddha has the most 'scientific' approach to spirituality: the path he taught is so systematic it is just like a science, his teachings are so consistent, and non-contradictory, and his realisations of No-Self, Non-duality and Emptiness is truly deep.
Anyway as a conclusion for this atheist forum, don't get stuck at the rational level of your consciousness's development. As the article The New Atheism is as Flat as a Pancake says But if there's one good thing that the New Atheists are doing, it's that they're elevating the psychological development of people who are ready to step out of mythic belief in God. I just hope that these people don't get stuck in rational level because there are other higher levels of God that can only be understood and appreciated once we take a skinny dip into the trans-rational. -- Get yourself enlightened to the transrational/transcendental reality. -
Though what can be discussed is quite limited, and sometimes hard to get the message across without a spiritual background, I think there are certain things that can be discussed and worth discussing.Originally posted by monkeywarriors:Quoted from the same topic in Buddhism forum by member longchen which I agree, though I'm not sure of the background of January
Interesting topic...... but gonna become chicken and duck talk Duck go quack quack while chicken go kok kok keh... how to understand each other?
pardon the intrusion... -
And don't get stuck in the Buddhist idea of unlimited conciousness as there isn't any. There has never been any new Atheist movement, just science based on facts and physical experiments. If it cannot be physically proven, then it is still pseudo science.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:(continued)
What is the Causal God? As Thusness clearly puts it in Is God A Thing?
For a more thorough understanding on the differences between Causal God and Non-Dual realisation, please refer to the third article in Some Writings on Non-duality by Ken Wilber, starting from 'There are many things that I can doubt, but I cannot doubt my own consciousness in this moment.'
Though after speaking so much, I must say that Buddha has the most 'scientific' approach to spirituality: the path he taught is so systematic it is just like a science, his teachings are so consistent, and non-contradictory, and his realisations of No-Self, Non-duality and Emptiness is truly deep.
Anyway as a conclusion for this atheist forum, don't get stuck at the rational level of your consciousness's development. As the article The New Atheism is as Flat as a Pancake says But if there's one good thing that the New Atheists are doing, it's that they're elevating the psychological development of people who are ready to step out of mythic belief in God. I just hope that these people don't get stuck in rational level because there are other higher levels of God that can only be understood and appreciated once we take a skinny dip into the trans-rational. -- Get yourself enlightened to the transrational/transcendental reality. -
This is an example of getting stuck in the rational level of consciousnessOriginally posted by Herzog_Zwei:And don't get stuck in the Buddhist idea of unlimited conciousness as there isn't any. There has never been any new Atheist movement, just science based on facts and physical experiments. If it cannot be physically proven, then it is still pseudo science.
Trying to prove something not limited to physical laws by physical laws - this is the pseudo science based on the assumption that only what one perceives through one's senses can be true.
Quantum physics will eventually have a higher understanding of our consciousness. As a matter of fact it is already very supportive.
And when you're dealing with things like Consciousness, you can't just use physical laws to study it, because consciousness is not confined to it.
Chalmers advocates the necessity for a new theory, distinct from physical laws, to close the explanatory gap2 and to solve the hard problems of consciousness. Chalmers argues that a complete final theory of the universe will need to establish consciousness as a fundamental, irreducible component. So 'physically proven' is irrelevant here!
Of course, you can prove someone is conscious by checking his brian waves, that's about it. And yes, there are brainwaves correlates with deep meditative states even that of Causal and Nondual (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFMtq5g8N4&mode=related&search= where Ken Wilber demonstrates himself entering into Causal, Nondual and other meditative states and its correlates to brainwave activities) However, Consciousness is Consciousness, Brain waves is Brain waves and they are a different 'element'.
But before that, do your practise and meditation, find out for yourself.
See Thusness's reply to Casino_King:
There are countless experiential accounts by contemplatives, mystics and Buddhists that describe the same kind of transcendental insight ever since several thousands of years ago. Similarly because of these accounts it is therefore possible that we may reach these insights ourselves by doing spiritual practise.Originally posted by Thusness:Hi Casino_King,
It is inadequate to use rational thought to understand spiritual matters. Logic is only that branch of philosophy that deals with reasoning. It does not deal with all types of thinking such as remembering (Recalling past life included), dreaming (Dream Yoga), day dreaming, neurosis, learning..etc. These other types of thinking are the job of psychology and parapsychology.
Although evidence is needed to serve as a base for inductive and deductive reasoning, full proof evidence to arrive at a certain conclusion is not necessary in logical analysis. In daily life, not all reasoning attempts to provide conclusive evidence for the truth of a given conclusion and more often than not, conclusive evidence cannot be produced. For pragmatic ground, we merely want the evidence we arrived at be 'well founded'.
As human, sleeping and dreaming took up pretty much percentage of our life. We are not just a rational being, to understand human, we have to deal with all these matters with spiritual issues included.
Like I said to you previously, "Since Buddhism is about spirituality, experiments must be conducted through spiritual techniques, otherwise there will be no real benefits." That is what is truly useful.
Also see the limits of current classical science (my 32522th time mentioning) in dealing with (ultimate) Reality: http://www.dreamdatum.com/science-limitation.html
Also see: Ken Wilber - Spirituality and the 3 Strands of Deep Science -- watch the whole thing ESPECIALLY after 6:00 -- Spirituality IS a form of science but don't mix up biology with physics, even though they are interrelated. -
Not true!Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Also see the limits of current classical science (my 32522th time mentioning) in dealing with (ultimate) Reality:
Your current post count is only 13093. In order to have mentioned this point (which I don't necessarily agree with but am too sleepy right now to address) 32522 times, you must have mentioned this point at least 2.48 per post.
A cursory survey of your posts shows that thsi cannot be true. -
{wrong post}