Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Found an interesting article
Sunspot5254
Explorer
Okay so I found this article and I just thought it was pretty interesting. I wanted to know what you all thought about it and maybe have a discussion.
0
Comments
Warning - its kinda lengthy
Could you summarize the main points?
I mean I can try, I can do it later today.
Okay I reread it and I can honestly say that I have no idea how to paraphrase any of this. Sorry
but it really is worth the read. I've gotta say I'm surprised more people aren't interested in this.
>
I don't think it's that we're not interested;
First of all, the title is misleading, because the article immediately disclaims it.
>
First of all, let us do away with the (maybe semantic) mistake of looking for actual proof at all; modern science doesn't deal in proof, and so there is no reason for a modern scientific mind to expect proof of anything, including rebirth.
>
Secondly, it' s actually a very common topic of discussion on forum: Science versus philosophy, versus the Buddha's teachings' versus do we HAVE to believe in rebirth, and if so, what are we talking about, exactly....?
so we're not disinterested because we can't be bothered... we're perhaps not as... 'enthusiastic' as you might have expected, because, well...it's "old hat"....
@federica Sorry I hadn't realized that you all had already read lots of things like this, I haven't so its all very new to me. The science behind all this and the research is still astounding to me.
And I appreciated the article purely for the thought behind it and there were definitely some very interesting theories in it. I'm not so caught up on what the name of it was. I think it was trying to get to the fact that science hasn't really proven much at all so the idea that we can prove something should be tossed aside and instead thought about in the same way that other scientific matters are handled. By theory and experimentation with a probable answer.
It was definitely food for thought in my book and this among other scientific theories and articles I've read have been the basis for my ability to believe in something as "wild" as rebirth. It's given me more of a sound mind.
Nutshell from skimming: Buddhists don't believe in rebirth per se, just that death doesn't really exist because self is an illusion. If self is just a construct of circumstances, and not tied to a 4 dimensional concept of organism, then there is no "proof" that death exists beyond the observable deterioration of the organic form.
Interesting point, I think the value here is the discussion of self as an artificial construct, of which organic being is only a part. Once the organic parts deteriorate in one form, they are "reborn" in another. All of us are consituted of the things that came before; most elements can only form due to stellar cataclysm. Even consciousness is a grand illusion, the defining moment of "I Am" being the ultimate expression of Ego.
Remember the billions of year before you were born?
It's like that.
I really thought the whole theory that the universe exists because we are conscious and the universe would cease to exist if consciousness wasn't there to perceive it was very interesting. I know that's been something talked about in a lot of scientific circles but its still a very interesting idea that I'd love to delve into deeper.
I watched this lecture a while back that had given the idea that without consciousness, the world around us would look like buzzing gray static (or something similar) because our minds couldn't process it into the way we see the world now.
Don't be sorry.... I'm sorry you haven't received the responses you were seeking form fellow members...
And @Amthorn summarises it nicely.
Difficult to do...
On a practical note, the article isn't written in a very "user-friendly" style... so some may find difficulty making head or tail of it, because it's very verbose....
It reminds me of the quotation (seen on a sticker in a car)...
"Buddhism is for the intelligentsia".
In trying to read that article, I can see what the sticker was getting at....
Hi @Sunspot5254.
I tried to read the article but got lost after a while unfortunately! Too many big words for me. Any more than two syllables and us Aussie men start struggling
Just on a side note (and I don't want to speak for everyone on this site) but when I first discovered Buddhism about 5 years ago I spent the first year or two trying to intellectualise everything and answer all the questions I had in my head. It then reached a point where I realised that I just needed to bloody practice and stop faffing about!!
What's more important on this path (IMO) is finding a tradition / practice that suits you and start following it. The answers will come to you along the way if they're supposed to.
@Bunks ! well said.
Even after all these countless pages and pages on how to put together a bicycle, its fluid dynamics, equations for the gear ratios and spin.. still gotta actually get on a bicycle to learn how to ride!
Interesting article, by the way.> @Amthorn said:
awesome synopsis, which I did not find immediately looking at the article.
The only thing I'd like to add is that no matter how deep ones understanding of physics (which can approach "wisdom" in the sense of groundless, relative, relational, without-self-nature) is that it must be paired with compassion in order to culminate in awakening.
Lots of physicists might have a great conceptual step-ladder to emptiness, but for the true qualities of awakening to manifest, it is Wisdom-realizing-emptiness united with Compassion.
Words only go so far, but they can point =D
This is a major problem with the western (i.e. christian) way of how we understand the 'underlying nature' of the being, out of which we emerge as a 'self-conscious being', and determine that we are either more or less what we really are. So much nonsense, yet sense has a role to play...
...\lol/...