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.
Personal experience is not good evidence for science. All personal evidence is merely anecdotal evidence.
As far as I know, and you'll probably agree, the Buddha taught people how to develop their own mind, how to get their own insights, instead of him showing external evidence to his pupils. So in Buddhism, evidence is always personal. It's actually all that matters.
There are many researches showing the value of mindfulness, including brain scans and what have you. There really is some evidence there that it is useful. But just to know that doesn't change anything if we don't practice it. All people know working out and eating healthy is good for your body, what's the use of that knowledge if you don't do it and notice the effects for yourself? Same for rebirth. It's personal verification that matters. Even if it would be proven 'externally', that wouldn't be sufficient from a Buddhist point of view, it has absolutely no value, really.
So in that sense, science and Buddhism are really quite the opposite and discussing scientific evidence for one position or the other is really very relative.
For me, yes. But those I know who have a better connection with their "true nature" do not have a problem with it so maybe one day I'll get there, lol.
My dad believes in reincarnation but only as far as physically, not as a consciousness or soul that changes bodies over time. To me, that's the only thing that makes logical sense, that something remains and changes bodies. What other point is there to existing? But perhaps others are right that there is no point at all, that our existence has no more point than a rock. We are there, then we are not there. Who knows. But I do think living the best possible way for all around you is the best way to go through life regardless of what happens. Anyhow, my dad just believes in continuing the cycle of life. He wants to be cremated and have his ashes dumped at a particular mountain spot. Then he figures eventually a bird will eat him, he'll get pooped out on someone's windshield (hopefully someone worth annoying with the big bird poop splat) and then the poop gets washed off, fertilizes a flower that feeds a bee and so on. I am fine with that sort of thing to. As if my NOT being ok with any post-death option matters, lol.
@karasti I like the analogy of rebirth and a candle flame. If you pass a flame from one candle to another, is it the same flame, a different flame, both the same flame and a different flame, neither the same flame nor a different flame, or something else.
This also works well because nirvana is describes as the extinguishing of that flame.
And I really like your comment "As if my NOT being ok with any post-death option matters" that really hits the nail on the head for me .
I like the analogy of rebirth and a candle flame. If you pass a flame from one candle to another, is it the same flame, a different flame, both the same flame and a different flame, neither the same flame nor a different flame, or something else.
No separate flame, I think is the conclusion.
Then we might naturally ask 'separate from what?' And it will take forever to explain.
I like the analogy of rebirth and a candle flame. If you pass a flame from one candle to another, is it the same flame, a different flame, both the same flame and a different flame, neither the same flame nor a different flame, or something else.
No separate flame, I think is the conclusion.
Then we might naturally ask 'separate from what?' And it will take forever to explain.
Can you explain what you mean by "No separate flame"?
I mean that the separate flame we identified, thus making it separate, does not stand up to the scrutiny of the questions in the analogy. Likewise the self that either perishes or continues.
§ 24. {Iti 1.24; Iti 17} This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "If a single person were to wander & transmigrate on for an aeon, he/she would leave behind a chain of bones, a pile of bones, a heap of bones, as large as this Mount Vepulla, if there were someone to collect them and the collection were not destroyed."
The accumulation of a single person's bones for an aeon would be a heap on a par with the mountain, so said the Great Seer. (He declared this to be the great Mount Vepulla to the north of Vulture's Peak in the mountain-ring of the Magadhans.)[1] But when that person sees with right discernment the four Noble Truths — stress, the cause of stress, the transcending of stress, & the Noble Eightfold Path, the way to the stilling of stress — having wandered on seven times at most, then, with the ending of all fetters, he puts a stop to stress.
Note 1. Magadha was a kingdom in the time of the Buddha, corresponding roughly to the present day state of Bihar. Its capital city, Rajagaha, was surrounded by a ring of five mountains. Vulture's Peak, a secluded rock outcrop in the middle of the ring, was a spot frequented by the Buddha.
I don't cling to one view or another about rebirth. So I am curious, how do you guys interpret sutras like these? What could be the non-literal interpretation of piles of bones as large as a mountain collecting over an aeon?
B5C: James Randi is a magician and a pseudo-skeptic. He hasn't proven anything except that he suffers from the malady of chronic a priori fallacy.
No charge of fraud was brought against Professor Hans Bender (1974) and his associates at the Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie, in Freiburg, who investigated the matter.
Neither experts from the telephone company nor physicists called in from the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Plasmaphysics near Munich were able to account for the phenomena. The physicists F. Karger and G. Zicha remarked in their summary: "Although recorded with the facilities available to experimental physics, the phenomena defy explanation with the means available to theoretical physics" (1967, p. 35)" (Jan Ehrenwald, The ESP Experience: A Psychiatric Validation (New York: Basic Books, 1978), 134,).
The problem with the case. Is when others came by to study the case. They never had the same experience as Karger, so they could not validate their claims. Doesn't matter police and others can't find fraud. If they can not validate the claims. Then it's not provable in science.
"The problem with knowledge is the problem of Hume, that the principles used in establishing factual knowledge cannot establish themselves; induction cannot induce induction; there are no verifiable general statements; and the basis of science is non-scientific." — Lothar Schäfer In Search of Divine Reality
"The problem with knowledge is the problem of Hume, that the principles used in establishing factual knowledge cannot establish themselves; induction cannot induce induction; there are no verifiable general statements; and the basis of science is non-scientific." — Lothar Schäfer In Search of Divine Reality
That is a bold claim to make. With that claim. You are giving valiblity to Young Earth Creationists and Flat Earthers.
The problem with the idea of rebirth is not that the evidence for it is merely anecdotal. The real problem is that as a theory it is not falsifiable. There is no conceivable test that can prove the theory wrong.
So the discussion will last for all eternity. There will be no conclusive evidence to support rebirth (because there is no such thing as rebirth). There will be no conclusive evidence that rejects rebirth either because the theory is simply too obscure for that.
Again, Buddhism isn't about proving things externally but internally. People often forget that if things can't be proven by science, it can still be proven personally.
For example, science can't prove the existence of consciousness in general, whether it is subjected to rebirth or not doesn't even matter. There is no way to measure it. But we have our own experience of it, so we know it exists without needing any science.
And science is really relative, for it can only disprove things. There is a model for gravity, science says it works throughout the entire galaxy. But that's an assumption, one can't know if that's actually true. Science can really only say when certain models aren't true. For example, for a long time, time was considered to be constant throughout the galaxy also. Now science has proven it is not and a new model has been made, which is considered true until disproven, but again can never be proven 100%. So don't overestimate the value of science in the practice of the Buddhist path.
Whatever ones eventually conclusions ( if any ) I think a reading of Ajahn Buddhadasa on the subject will be instructive for those unaquainted with his thought. Even if one remains unconvinced by his arguments. One of the things he focuses on is the nature of time, and whether our experience of time as linear is not simply basic result of maya.
That's true either way. But the Buddha told us to trust our experience, not reasoning, because if we have a clear mind we can see where we fooled ourselves and where we didn't.
But the Buddha told us to trust our experience, not reasoning, because if we have a clear mind we can see where we fooled ourselves and where we didn't.
Maybe he did. But it’s still a bad idea. The evidence for rebirth is as strong as the evidence for alien abductions, and the method is the same: anecdotal evidence of people who either are joking around or seriously developed a false memory of some imaginary event.
And the danger is the same...the tendency to build a whole new persona around concepts...leave aside for one moment the literal reality or otherwise of Rebirth. What we see frequently is an attempt to create a solid believing person around the idea. An idea which is then defended and proselytized. Which is fundamentally at odds with the whole point of Dharma.
I don't cling to one view or another about rebirth. So I am curious, how do you guys interpret sutras like these? What could be the non-literal interpretation of piles of bones as large as a mountain collecting over an aeon?
There isn't a non-literal interpretation, and according to the suttas the Buddha taught rebirth ( more precisely, a cycle of birth and death with beings re-appearing in different realms according to their actions, ie kamma ).
Whether one personally believes these teachings is of course another matter.
Whatever ones eventually conclusions ( if any ) I think a reading of Ajahn Buddhadasa on the subject will be instructive for those unaquainted with his thought. Even if one remains unconvinced by his arguments.
Yes, he had an interesting way of looking at things. But I'd also recommend actually reading the suttas upon which such interpretations are based.
While I'm not in the mood for another round of explaining the difference between proof and wishful thinking, I have to set the record straight on this case of the alleged poltergeist activity around Annemarie Schneider in the 1960s. It's because the little bit of information given here and in places like wikipedia is designed to support their conclusion, not tell you what actually happened. It's a pattern you find in all "case histories" listed that try to provide evidence for the paranormal.
In this case, the scientists that examined a swaying ceiling light that was supposedly cause by poltergeist activity did a rather cursory examination of such things as the power going to the light and the surrounding electromagnetic field and found nothing that could cause the movement. This is trumpeted as "proof" that it was ghosts or paranormal? What the defenders of spookiness don't tell you is the rest of their conclusion: That it was probably done by physical means but whatever or whoever did it seemed to be avoiding the scientists so they couldn't say anything more.
Oh, and one local magician caught wind of this and managed to talk his way into the home and pointed out a thin line hanging from the ceiling. He was not allowed back into the home.
See, these cases that you read about are stretched and tweaked until they fit the belief you're trying to defend. Oh, and that "no charges of fraud were made by the police?" Why in the world would the police be interested in making formal charges of fraud even if something could be proven? It wasn't like the girl was charging money for people to see an "authentic poltergeist" or telling fortunes. But this is the sort of detail added in an attempt to make this seem like it proves anything.
Let's get something straight: There is no proof of reincarnation, or of past lives, or of any sort of afterlife. There is a lot of wishful thinking and people fooling themselves. If you believe, it's in spite of no evidence. Accept that for you, it's a matter of faith. I'll respect that. Then we can talk about, what is it being reincarnated? instead of arguing about what constitutes real evidence.
Whatever ones eventually conclusions ( if any ) I think a reading of Ajahn Buddhadasa on the subject will be instructive for those unaquainted with his thought. Even if one remains unconvinced by his arguments.
Yes, he had an interesting way of looking at things. But I'd also recommend actually reading the suttas upon which such interpretations are based.
I think it's sort of strange how people don't need scientific evidence for the use of following the precepts, the use of meditation, for following parts of the path, for trying to get to understand non-self, etc. But when it comes to rebirth, a lot of people suddenly leave the realm of personal experience and the only thing that counts is scientific proof. People having ideas of rebirth are suddenly doing things like 'joking around', 'false', 'wishful thinking' etc.
In Buddhism a view of rebirth is part of right view, which is a change of mind not so easy to attain. The Buddha gave the way to do it, but he couldn't do it for others. He also taught a method to recall previous lives, although not everybody can do that. In short, he never talked about external scientific evidence with regard to rebirth, because that's not the way to prove it, as I argued before.
Now, this topic started with a video by Ajahn Brahm, his book Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond also illustrates a method to recall previous lives. I don't know if he discusses it in the video.
One thing is for sure, it's not wishful thinking because rebirth is part of the problem. One could as well say that annihilation is wishful thinking out of fear for future lives.
I think it's sort of strange how people don't need scientific evidence for the use of following the precepts, the use of meditation, for following parts of the path, for trying to get to understand non-self, etc. But when it comes to rebirth, a lot of people suddenly leave the realm of personal experience and the only thing that counts is scientific proof. People having ideas of rebirth are suddenly doing things like 'joking around', 'false', 'wishful thinking' etc.
A psychological theory saying that meditation will make us feel better is verifiable. Psychological effects of practice and meditation can be studied and verified. I believe the effects of meditation have often been scientifically examined.
Another line of research says memories are constructions and we can easily make false memories.
Interestingly, research has revealed that asking individuals to repeatedly imagine actions that they have never performed or events that they have never experienced could result in false memories. For instance, Goff and Roediger [63] (1998) asked participants to imagine that they performed an act (e.g., break a toothpick) and then later asked them whether they had done such a thing. Findings revealed that those participants who repeatedly imagined performing such an act were more likely to think that they had actually performed that act during the first session of the experiment. Similarly, Garry and her colleagues (1996) [64] asked college students to report how certain they were that they experienced a number of events as children (e.g., broke a window with their hand) and then two weeks later asked them to imagine four of those events. The researchers found that one-fourth of the students asked to imagine the four events reported that they had actually experienced such events as children. That is, when asked to imagine the events they were more confident that they experienced the events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory#Memory_Construction
Buddhist meditation works whatever our belief system is. Practice on a day by day basis may confirm what at the moment is a belief. Daily practice will certainly make for less suffering in this life... Until then, to borrow a phrase from the Christian mystics, its quite ok to put the issue into The " Cloud Of Unknowing ". What is..will out.
Until then, to borrow a phrase from the Christian mystics, its quite ok to put the issue into The " Cloud Of Unknowing ".
Yes, that's sensible - and I think generally we know much less than we think we do. I also think it's useful to maintain some separation between our current personal beliefs and our understanding of what the Buddha taught.
Those skeptical of literal rebirth (not reincarnation) have commented on how meditation is verifiable through science, but what about the concept of non-self? Do you believe in non-self? If so, what is the scientific evidence that supports that belief?
I guess so this doesn't go too off topic. I am curious about the idea of taking some parts of buddhism literally and others figuratively? I think it definitely has cultural and historical perspectives on things... but I am not convinced that certain parts should be taken literally and other figuratively. What tools or evidence do we have within buddhism to discern which teachings to take in what way?
In Buddhism a view of rebirth is part of right view, which is a change of mind not so easy to attain.
That's right. And as I've observed elsewhere, the Noble Truths are described in the suttas in a way that doesn't make sense without reference to teachings on rebirth and the realms.
That is a bold claim to make. With that claim. You are giving valiblity to Young Earth Creationists and Flat Earthers.
First of all, I never made the claim and, no, it's not bold. Maybe its bold for you but for a scientist like Lothar Schäfer it is not. So, who is Lothar Schäfer?
"He is the Edgar Wertheim Distinguished Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. He received his Ph.D. (in Chemistry) from the University of Munich in 1965, and is the recipient of numerous awards for his scientific work. His current research interests include topics in Applied Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Structural Studies by Electron Diffraction" (Source: http://www.halexandria.org/dward129.htm)
Care to tell us about your background in science? Is your CV posted?
Those skeptical of literal rebirth (not reincarnation) have commented on how meditation is verifiable through science, but what about the concept of non-self? Do you believe in non-self? If so, what is the scientific evidence that supports that belief?
Yes, and is there scientific evidence for nirvana? People can be very selective about what they believe and what they question.
The problem with the idea of rebirth is not that the evidence for it is merely anecdotal. The real problem is that as a theory it is not falsifiable. There is no conceivable test that can prove the theory wrong.
Your statement only applies to the physical sciences. Buddhism, last I heard, was not included in the physical sciences. The test the Buddha uses is self verification.
"It is good, monks. You, monks, have been presented by me with this dhamma which is self-realised, timeless, a come-and-see thing, leading onwards (opanayika), to be understood individually (pacattam) by the wise." (M.i.265).
If it doesn't work for a person, they can either safeguard it (because later on they may find out it is true), or find another religion.
A psychological theory saying that meditation will make us feel better is verifiable.
For that matter, so might an exercise group that walks or a gardening group like the one in my neighborhood that plants flowers and cleans up the little park that is a block from my house. With a controlled group, the experimental group and the variable, we may find out that many activities produce the same benefits as meditation, that is, feeling better.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I base my belief in rebirth partly upon trusting the testimony of individuals who have spent 10s of thousands of hours in meditation observing the mind. As far as I'm aware they all say that the fundamental pure state of awareness, free from mental perterbations is immaterial. If it is immaterial then why should it end when the brain does? Introspection can be refined in meditation and biases can be noticed and corrected.
It can be argued that these people are deluding themselves and only seeing what they want to believe, I don't buy that though.
To me the really extraordinary claim is that made by people like Daniel Dennett, that our inner subjective experience is just an illusion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
But the Buddha told us to trust our experience, not reasoning, because if we have a clear mind we can see where we fooled ourselves and where we didn't.
Maybe he did. But it’s still a bad idea. The evidence for rebirth is as strong as the evidence for alien abductions, and the method is the same: anecdotal evidence of people who either are joking around or seriously developed a false memory of some imaginary event.
Both you and Sabre are going too far, albeit in opposite directions.
About science, Sabre is sounding a bit like some Republican friends I know here in Colorado who have a non-science viewpoint that denies things like climate change, issues with fracking, and serious water pollution due to old mining claims.
But, when you put down anecdotal evidence, as you have, well that goes too far in the other direction. Much of science uses anecdotal evidence. Medicine is a good example. Doctors collect evidence about your condition, often using your own anecdotes about symptoms. During drug trails, collecting anecdotal evidence is a part of the review of patients on the new drugs. But, of course, anecdotal evidence can be taken too far, too. I think back to a geography college professor I had back when the department got its first computer. He anxiously told me to come over and look at the computer screen, where there were these rather odd non-symmetrical lines. I asked him what it was and he responded that it was hill slope shapes. I said I had never seen hill slopes with any of those shapes. And he said it was only theoretical. Gee, I thought we had plenty of hill slopes to really measure without making some up based on our own fanciful thinking.
Both you and Sabre are going too far, albeit in opposite directions.
About science, Sabre is sounding a bit like some Republican friends I know here in Colorado who have a non-science viewpoint that denies things like climate change, issues with fracking, and serious water pollution due to old mining claims.
The only thing I said is that science can't prove the existence of consciousness in general. That's just true, it can't. I agree it's very reasonable that other people also have consciousness, but how can you measure it? (see also Philosofical zombies)
But that doesn't mean I deny things science can show. So please don't misrepresent my point of view. I'm a scientist myself so I know how it works and what it's value can be. But for Buddhist practice, it has very relative use. Even if science could somehow prove enlightenment exists, it wouldn't have a lot of value if we don't get enlightened ourselves. If it proved rebirth exists, it wouldn't do much if we don't have that view ourselves. (I mean a non-intellectual view)
I think this is important, but feel people miss the essence. It's not only important for the relative use of scientific arguments against rebirth, but just as much the evidence in support of it. It goes two ways. So it also it shows why having doubt in rebirth can be a good thing. By having doubt, we verify that we are not "convinced" by arguments or researches or because teachers say it or because the suttas say it, or whatever.
Science is about explaining mental discriminations, which is useful in a human context but ultimately a tautology; Buddhism is taught using discriminations, but points to that which is prior to mental discriminations. So Buddhism shouldn't conflict with science on the ultimate level, only on the relative level.
I think it's sort of strange how people don't need scientific evidence for the use of following the precepts, the use of meditation, for following parts of the path, for trying to get to understand non-self, etc. But when it comes to rebirth, a lot of people suddenly leave the realm of personal experience and the only thing that counts is scientific proof. People having ideas of rebirth are suddenly doing things like 'joking around', 'false', 'wishful thinking' etc.
In Buddhism a view of rebirth is part of right view, which is a change of mind not so easy to attain. The Buddha gave the way to do it, but he couldn't do it for others. He also taught a method to recall previous lives, although not everybody can do that. In short, he never talked about external scientific evidence with regard to rebirth, because that's not the way to prove it, as I argued before.
Now, this topic started with a video by Ajahn Brahm, his book Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond also illustrates a method to recall previous lives. I don't know if he discusses it in the video.
One thing is for sure, it's not wishful thinking because rebirth is part of the problem. One could as well say that annihilation is wishful thinking out of fear for future lives.
First, I don' think most of us are saying that ideas of rebirth are "like 'joking around', 'false', 'wishful thinking' etc." Most of us are saying we are open-minded, but that we are not convinced because the independent evidence is missing.
Second, many of us base our beliefs in Buddhism on being able to test Buddhist or Buddha's principles. You, on the other hand, base at least some of your belief in Buddhism or Buddha's principles on pure faith. You have not experienced rebirth...at least you can't remember having experienced it. You have not watched someone else undergo it. You just believe. Which is okay, as long as you realize that's what you're doing.
Those skeptical of literal rebirth (not reincarnation) have commented on how meditation is verifiable through science, but what about the concept of non-self? Do you believe in non-self? If so, what is the scientific evidence that supports that belief?
I guess so this doesn't go too off topic. I am curious about the idea of taking some parts of buddhism literally and others figuratively? I think it definitely has cultural and historical perspectives on things... but I am not convinced that certain parts should be taken literally and other figuratively. What tools or evidence do we have within buddhism to discern which teachings to take in what way?
I don't know quite whether to agree with your whole question, but I think it's a good, probing question.
... Care to tell us about your background in science? Is your CV posted?
You're going too far. Each of us -- including you -- have viewpoints on topics for which we have no college degrees. And, although I have 2 degrees in science, I also know that scientists are not always right. And, BTW, your CV has not been provided to us, either. That doesn't mean we don't read and consider your posts.
I think it's sort of strange how people don't need scientific evidence for the use of following the precepts, the use of meditation, for following parts of the path, for trying to get to understand non-self, etc. But when it comes to rebirth, a lot of people suddenly leave the realm of personal experience and the only thing that counts is scientific proof. People having ideas of rebirth are suddenly doing things like 'joking around', 'false', 'wishful thinking' etc.
In Buddhism a view of rebirth is part of right view, which is a change of mind not so easy to attain. The Buddha gave the way to do it, but he couldn't do it for others. He also taught a method to recall previous lives, although not everybody can do that. In short, he never talked about external scientific evidence with regard to rebirth, because that's not the way to prove it, as I argued before.
Now, this topic started with a video by Ajahn Brahm, his book Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond also illustrates a method to recall previous lives. I don't know if he discusses it in the video.
One thing is for sure, it's not wishful thinking because rebirth is part of the problem. One could as well say that annihilation is wishful thinking out of fear for future lives.
First, I don' think most of us are saying that ideas of rebirth are "like 'joking around', 'false', 'wishful thinking' etc." Most of us are saying we are open-minded, but that we are not convinced because the independent evidence is missing.
Second, many of us base our beliefs in Buddhism on being able to test Buddhist or Buddha's principles. You, on the other hand, base at least some of your belief in Buddhism or Buddha's principles on pure faith. You have not experienced rebirth...at least you can't remember having experienced it. You have not watched someone else undergo it. You just believe. Which is okay, as long as you realize that's what you're doing.
I'm not saying everybody says it's "joking around etc.", that's why I said 'a lot of people'. I know there are also a lot of people who don't think like that.
Perhaps read again. I'm the one here arguing for personal experience, testing the Buddha's experience instead of blind faith.
You're going too far. Each of us -- including you -- have viewpoints on topics for which we have no college degrees. And, although I have 2 degrees in science, I also know that scientists are not always right. And, BTW, your CV has not been provided to us, either. That doesn't mean we don't read and consider your posts.
Excellent point. But I felt B5C's rebuff of Lothar Schäfer was totally unjustified given Schäfer's background and the fact that B5C has, apparently, never read his book and followed his chain of reasoning. Speaking for my self, my toleration level is quite low when it comes to these issues. Science is not god nor is it anything that deserves our obedience and blind belief. In fact, science has turned into "scientism."
What the rebirth deniers are missing, including those who claim to be open minded but remain steadfastly unconvinced, is a proper understanding of how rebirth was understood by Buddhists like Bassui and others. Here is what Japanese Zen master Bassui had to say on the subject:
What is the power of knowing past lives?
“From the moment you realize your inherent nature, your mind will penetrate through aeons of emptiness that preceded creation through to the endless future. Clear and independent, it will not attach itself to the changing phenomena of life and death, past and future, but will remain constant without obstructing doubts. This is the power of knowning past lives” (trans. Braverman).
Necessary for a proper understanding of past lives/rebirth (punarbhava) is awakening to our true nature or the same, absolute Mind. Without such an awakening the subject of past lives is almost incomprehensible.
Based on the canon as I have read it and realized it, the absolute substance (our inherent nature) has configured itself into countless forms to which we have wrongly attached believing "I am this" which is not the truth of the way things really are. Seeing now itself, which is awakening or bodhi, the absolute substance no longer transmigrates/transforms, thus, to lose sight of itself in its countless forms.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
One can be very good at expressing Buddhism correctly, but a more difficult skill is allowing one's mind to be fluid enough to connect with, for instance, Buddhism expressed in ebonics, or Buddhism expressed in the countless flower sermons life provides. To meet others where they stand, even if you think you might fall there.
Letting go of the 'specialness' of one's own expression, while knowing one's own expression of the dharma has its sacred place, whether on dusty bookshelves, internet forums, as the words of a celebrated master to adoring multitudes, or shared quietly and clearly with a friend over tea and cookies, without the words 'Buddhism', 'rebirth' or 'nirvana' showing up at all.
Comments
There are many researches showing the value of mindfulness, including brain scans and what have you. There really is some evidence there that it is useful. But just to know that doesn't change anything if we don't practice it. All people know working out and eating healthy is good for your body, what's the use of that knowledge if you don't do it and notice the effects for yourself? Same for rebirth. It's personal verification that matters. Even if it would be proven 'externally', that wouldn't be sufficient from a Buddhist point of view, it has absolutely no value, really.
So in that sense, science and Buddhism are really quite the opposite and discussing scientific evidence for one position or the other is really very relative.
point #10... I admit. Buddhism is by bias/personal belief on some topics.
I'm betting on red that the mind training/practice is keeping me adhering
to all the other points, though. lololololol
My dad believes in reincarnation but only as far as physically, not as a consciousness or soul that changes bodies over time. To me, that's the only thing that makes logical sense, that something remains and changes bodies. What other point is there to existing? But perhaps others are right that there is no point at all, that our existence has no more point than a rock. We are there, then we are not there. Who knows. But I do think living the best possible way for all around you is the best way to go through life regardless of what happens. Anyhow, my dad just believes in continuing the cycle of life. He wants to be cremated and have his ashes dumped at a particular mountain spot. Then he figures eventually a bird will eat him, he'll get pooped out on someone's windshield (hopefully someone worth annoying with the big bird poop splat) and then the poop gets washed off, fertilizes a flower that feeds a bee and so on. I am fine with that sort of thing to. As if my NOT being ok with any post-death option matters, lol.
This also works well because nirvana is describes as the extinguishing of that flame.
And I really like your comment "As if my NOT being ok with any post-death option matters" that really hits the nail on the head for me
Then we might naturally ask 'separate from what?' And it will take forever to explain.
Then we might naturally ask 'separate from what?' And it will take forever to explain.
Can you explain what you mean by "No separate flame"?
No charge of fraud was brought against Professor Hans Bender (1974) and his associates at the Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie, in Freiburg, who investigated the matter.
The problem with the idea of rebirth is not that the evidence for it is merely anecdotal. The real problem is that as a theory it is not falsifiable. There is no conceivable test that can prove the theory wrong.
So the discussion will last for all eternity. There will be no conclusive evidence to support rebirth (because there is no such thing as rebirth).
There will be no conclusive evidence that rejects rebirth either because the theory is simply too obscure for that.
For example, science can't prove the existence of consciousness in general, whether it is subjected to rebirth or not doesn't even matter. There is no way to measure it. But we have our own experience of it, so we know it exists without needing any science.
And science is really relative, for it can only disprove things. There is a model for gravity, science says it works throughout the entire galaxy. But that's an assumption, one can't know if that's actually true. Science can really only say when certain models aren't true. For example, for a long time, time was considered to be constant throughout the galaxy also. Now science has proven it is not and a new model has been made, which is considered true until disproven, but again can never be proven 100%. So don't overestimate the value of science in the practice of the Buddhist path.
We are perfectly capable of fooling ourselves.
One of the things he focuses on is the nature of time, and whether our experience of time as linear is not simply basic result of maya.
The evidence for rebirth is as strong as the evidence for alien abductions, and the method is the same: anecdotal evidence of people who either are joking around or seriously developed a false memory of some imaginary event.
What we see frequently is an attempt to create a solid believing person around the idea. An idea which is then defended and proselytized.
Which is fundamentally at odds with the whole point of Dharma.
Whether one personally believes these teachings is of course another matter.
In this case, the scientists that examined a swaying ceiling light that was supposedly cause by poltergeist activity did a rather cursory examination of such things as the power going to the light and the surrounding electromagnetic field and found nothing that could cause the movement. This is trumpeted as "proof" that it was ghosts or paranormal? What the defenders of spookiness don't tell you is the rest of their conclusion: That it was probably done by physical means but whatever or whoever did it seemed to be avoiding the scientists so they couldn't say anything more.
Oh, and one local magician caught wind of this and managed to talk his way into the home and pointed out a thin line hanging from the ceiling. He was not allowed back into the home.
See, these cases that you read about are stretched and tweaked until they fit the belief you're trying to defend. Oh, and that "no charges of fraud were made by the police?" Why in the world would the police be interested in making formal charges of fraud even if something could be proven? It wasn't like the girl was charging money for people to see an "authentic poltergeist" or telling fortunes. But this is the sort of detail added in an attempt to make this seem like it proves anything.
Let's get something straight: There is no proof of reincarnation, or of past lives, or of any sort of afterlife. There is a lot of wishful thinking and people fooling themselves. If you believe, it's in spite of no evidence. Accept that for you, it's a matter of faith. I'll respect that. Then we can talk about, what is it being reincarnated? instead of arguing about what constitutes real evidence.
Definitely.
In Buddhism a view of rebirth is part of right view, which is a change of mind not so easy to attain. The Buddha gave the way to do it, but he couldn't do it for others. He also taught a method to recall previous lives, although not everybody can do that. In short, he never talked about external scientific evidence with regard to rebirth, because that's not the way to prove it, as I argued before.
Now, this topic started with a video by Ajahn Brahm, his book Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond also illustrates a method to recall previous lives. I don't know if he discusses it in the video.
One thing is for sure, it's not wishful thinking because rebirth is part of the problem. One could as well say that annihilation is wishful thinking out of fear for future lives.
Psychological effects of practice and meditation can be studied and verified. I believe the effects of meditation have often been scientifically examined.
Another line of research says memories are constructions and we can easily make false memories.
Practice on a day by day basis may confirm what at the moment is a belief.
Daily practice will certainly make for less suffering in this life...
Until then, to borrow a phrase from the Christian mystics, its quite ok to put the issue into The " Cloud Of Unknowing ".
What is..will out.
I guess so this doesn't go too off topic. I am curious about the idea of taking some parts of buddhism literally and others figuratively? I think it definitely has cultural and historical perspectives on things... but I am not convinced that certain parts should be taken literally and other figuratively. What tools or evidence do we have within buddhism to discern which teachings to take in what way?
"He is the Edgar Wertheim Distinguished Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. He received his Ph.D. (in Chemistry) from the University of Munich in 1965, and is the recipient of numerous awards for his scientific work. His current research interests include topics in Applied Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Structural Studies by Electron Diffraction" (Source: http://www.halexandria.org/dward129.htm)
Care to tell us about your background in science? Is your CV posted?
If it doesn't work for a person, they can either safeguard it (because later on they may find out it is true), or find another religion.
It can be argued that these people are deluding themselves and only seeing what they want to believe, I don't buy that though.
To me the really extraordinary claim is that made by people like Daniel Dennett, that our inner subjective experience is just an illusion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
About science, Sabre is sounding a bit like some Republican friends I know here in Colorado who have a non-science viewpoint that denies things like climate change, issues with fracking, and serious water pollution due to old mining claims.
But, when you put down anecdotal evidence, as you have, well that goes too far in the other direction. Much of science uses anecdotal evidence. Medicine is a good example. Doctors collect evidence about your condition, often using your own anecdotes about symptoms. During drug trails, collecting anecdotal evidence is a part of the review of patients on the new drugs. But, of course, anecdotal evidence can be taken too far, too. I think back to a geography college professor I had back when the department got its first computer. He anxiously told me to come over and look at the computer screen, where there were these rather odd non-symmetrical lines. I asked him what it was and he responded that it was hill slope shapes. I said I had never seen hill slopes with any of those shapes. And he said it was only theoretical. Gee, I thought we had plenty of hill slopes to really measure without making some up based on our own fanciful thinking.
But that doesn't mean I deny things science can show. So please don't misrepresent my point of view. I'm a scientist myself so I know how it works and what it's value can be. But for Buddhist practice, it has very relative use. Even if science could somehow prove enlightenment exists, it wouldn't have a lot of value if we don't get enlightened ourselves. If it proved rebirth exists, it wouldn't do much if we don't have that view ourselves. (I mean a non-intellectual view)
I think this is important, but feel people miss the essence. It's not only important for the relative use of scientific arguments against rebirth, but just as much the evidence in support of it. It goes two ways. So it also it shows why having doubt in rebirth can be a good thing. By having doubt, we verify that we are not "convinced" by arguments or researches or because teachers say it or because the suttas say it, or whatever.
Second, many of us base our beliefs in Buddhism on being able to test Buddhist or Buddha's principles. You, on the other hand, base at least some of your belief in Buddhism or Buddha's principles on pure faith. You have not experienced rebirth...at least you can't remember having experienced it. You have not watched someone else undergo it. You just believe. Which is okay, as long as you realize that's what you're doing.
Perhaps read again. I'm the one here arguing for personal experience, testing the Buddha's experience instead of blind faith.
Necessary for a proper understanding of past lives/rebirth (punarbhava) is awakening to our true nature or the same, absolute Mind. Without such an awakening the subject of past lives is almost incomprehensible.
Based on the canon as I have read it and realized it, the absolute substance (our inherent nature) has configured itself into countless forms to which we have wrongly attached believing "I am this" which is not the truth of the way things really are. Seeing now itself, which is awakening or bodhi, the absolute substance no longer transmigrates/transforms, thus, to lose sight of itself in its countless forms.
Blah...... :wtf:
Letting go of the 'specialness' of one's own expression, while knowing one's own expression of the dharma has its sacred place, whether on dusty bookshelves, internet forums, as the words of a celebrated master to adoring multitudes, or shared quietly and clearly with a friend over tea and cookies, without the words 'Buddhism', 'rebirth' or 'nirvana' showing up at all.