Now this is something else: Scientist Shows What Happens To 'Soul' After Death!!

DaltheJigsaw

Pretty amazing! Touches on Hinduism/Buddhism a little bit!




http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/videos/through-the-wormhole-2-tracking-souls-to-the-afterlife.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/soul-after-death-hameroff-penrose_n_2034711.html

RebeccaS

"Narrated by Morgan Freeman"

DaltheJigsaw

RebeccaS said:

"Narrated by Morgan Freeman"

So?
He is great! Such an intelligent man!

Bunks

The only issue being that the soul doesn't exist in the first place!

That's actually quite an interesting video.....

RebeccaS

LeonBasin said:

RebeccaS said:

"Narrated by Morgan Freeman"

So?
He is great! Such an intelligent man!

I love Morgan Freeman. But it's still hilarious how he narrates everything, it's a bit of a running joke

DaltheJigsaw

Bunks said:

The only issue being that the soul doesn't exist in the first place!

That's actually quite an interesting video.....

Why you say that? Or where did you get that? I know Buddhism believes in Consciousness and not a Soul, but I would like to know more!

DaltheJigsaw

RebeccaS said:

LeonBasin said:

RebeccaS said:

"Narrated by Morgan Freeman"

So?
He is great! Such an intelligent man!

I love Morgan Freeman. But it's still hilarious how he narrates everything, it's a bit of a running joke

Ahh;) Gotcha! Lol.

Captain_America

LeonBasin said:

Bunks said:

The only issue being that the soul doesn't exist in the first place!

That's actually quite an interesting video.....

Why you say that? Or where did you get that? I know Buddhism believes in Consciousness and not a Soul, but I would like to know more!

Yes I'm kind of interested in this myself. One of the things I dislike about Buddhism is the lack of belief in a soul as for as long as I can remember, I've believed in something to that effect. Then again, that may be a result of my Christian upbringing, I don't know.

Also, I'm not sure of the actual Buddhist definition of consciousness so there's that too.

In other related "Through the Wormhole" stuff, here's an interesting video about your brain on prayer:

http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/videos/your-brain-on-prayer.htm

When the brain is praying, regardless of faith, the language area of the brain activates as well as the front of the brain that is involved in holding a conversation. The video states that to the brain, speaking to God is indistinguishable from speaking with someone else.

As for Buddhists who visualize during meditation (didn't know that was a thing?), the appropriate visual areas of the brain light up.

Interestingly enough, for Atheists who flat out don't believe in any of that and were just contemplating God, their brains did not light up at all.

Also, I too think Morgan Freeman is the man. After all, he is God.

zombiegirl

I prefer Alanis Morisette as my god... lol.

But about Morgan Freeman, he has such a soothing voice! He's even narrating a new Obama ad.

Interesting video. I wish it was the full version...

DaltheJigsaw

I think it might be on http://www.Hulu.com

DaltheJigsaw

zombiegirl said:

I prefer Alanis Morisette as my god... lol.

But about Morgan Freeman, he has such a soothing voice! He's even narrating a new Obama ad.

Interesting video. I wish it was the full version...

I think it might be on http://www.Hulu.com

B5C

I just want to point out after reading the Huff post article you posted. Eventhough the theory (layman's term) has yet gotten "serious blow" it doesn't mean it's true. A good example is M-Theory (Super String Theory) it may sound good on paper, but it doesn't really make it true once we observed and tested it.

Songhill

For newbie Buddhists (those who have been studying under 5 years).

From consciousness the body arises, and consciousness covers all the body and limbs. When we look for consciousness in the body, we cannot find it anywhere; yet without consciousness, the body cannot live. — Maharatnakuta Sutra

When the consciousness leaves the body, it carries all the body’s attributes with it. It assumes an [ethereal] form as its body; it has no body of flesh and bones. Because it it has the senses, it has feeling and subtle memory and can tell good from evil. — Maharatnakuta Sutra

Wise Protector, in the same way, after a sentient being dies, his consciousness will take birth again together with the elements of feeling, awareness, and dharmas. — Maharatnakuta Sutra

DaltheJigsaw

B5C said:

I just want to point out after reading the Huff post article you posted. Eventhough the theory (layman's term) has yet gotten "serious blow" it doesn't mean it's true. A good example is M-Theory (Super String Theory) it may sound good on paper, but it doesn't really make it true once we observed and tested it.

That's true, but this is interesting in the sense that scientist are actually trying to grasp this type of thinking. I haven't heard much about this and so seeing this keeps my mind open. Thank you however for reading/commenting!

Bunks

LeonBasin said:

Bunks said:

The only issue being that the soul doesn't exist in the first place!

That's actually quite an interesting video.....

Why you say that? Or where did you get that? I know Buddhism believes in Consciousness and not a Soul, but I would like to know more!

You answered your own question @LeonBasin

Daozen

The concept of a 'soul' is equivalent to atman - something Buddha firmly rejected.

Samwise

Daozen said:

The concept of a 'soul' is equivalent to atman - something Buddha firmly rejected.

How can you be so simplistic in your understanding of what the Buddha said? There are many levels to the teachings... In the Nirvana Sutra the Self is equated with Buddhanature, it is said to be Pure, Blissfull, eternal and unchanging. It sounds like sometimes the Buddha did preach the Atman doctrine.

Dakini

Daozen said:

The concept of a 'soul' is equivalent to atman - something Buddha firmly rejected.

Except in some of the Mahayana sutras, where they say he believed in something called the "True Self", which he said was eternal.

Daozen

Dakini said:

Except in some of the Mahayana sutras, where they say he believed in something called the "True Self", which he said was eternal.

I assume you mean the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra? In which case, choose your teacher: Buddha himself, or unknown Tibetans living at least 500 years later.

person

Daozen said:

Dakini said:

Except in some of the Mahayana sutras, where they say he believed in something called the "True Self", which he said was eternal.

I assume you mean the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra? In which case, choose your teacher: Buddha himself, or unknown Tibetans living at least 500 years later.

I also wonder about the authorship of the sutra, however it is thought to have maybe been authored around the 1st or 2nd century CE and Buddhism didn't arrive in Tibet until the 5th century and really start taking hold for another century or two.

Tibetans get plenty of perhaps legitimate guff for modifying or adding to the teachings, this isn't one of them though.

lamaramadingdong

No mention of the "before-life"?

Jeffrey

Also oral tradition. There were different types of people in contact with Buddha. And thus they had different capabilities. Some of the yogis in Buddhas age may have learned how tantra meshes with the eightfold path, whereas non-tantric monks may not have been interested in the traditions of the tantric yogis.

I certainly find it likely that Buddhas sangha was heterogeneous to some extent just as it is today.