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.
How can rebirth exist when it goes against scientific laws?
I don't. Vajrayana /Dzogchen stands or falls on the authority of the Guru. Once you have committed to one ( and you are urged to examine her/his lineage and authority until you are sure ) you pretty much just turn up and do as you are told. Obviously its self selecting to a degree...lol.
He is not an authority figure. He is a trusted teacher. He is an authority figure in the same way as any senior academic would be.
I've not seen anything in Mahayana Buddhism that is alogical. But maybe there's an example we could discuss.
@Nevermind - There is no truth in any religion or science that relies on authority figures. Truths do not rely on anything. They are true. If they are not true they are not truths. What you mean (presumably) is that what some people call truths are not knowledge but dogma. This is not news.
What about the example of the Rainbow Body ? I would say that it is an example of a widely held Buddhist teaching that is neither logical nor illogical...it is of a different order.
I had to look this up, since I know nothing about it.
"The ultimate fruition of the thodgal practices is a body of pure light, called a rainbow body (Wylie 'ja' lus, pronounced Jalü.)[2] If the four visions of thogal are not completed before death, then at death, from the point of view of an external observer, the following happens: the corpse does not start to decompose, but starts to shrink until it disappears. Usually fingernails, toenails and hair are left behind[3] (see e.g. Togden Urgyen Tendzin, Ayu Khandro, Changchub Dorje.) The attainment of the rainbow body is typically accompanied by the appearance of lights and rainbows.[2]"
I have no idea whether this is true, but there doesn't seem to be anything alogical about it. Either it is true or it isn't. I can see why someone might dismiss it as nonsense, but not what is alogical about it.
And of course, Buddhism has its ultimate authority figure -- Buddha.
Of course there is the Kalama sutra
Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.
I think that this sets Buddhism apart in regards to belief in an authority.
Funny but it appears at though you are deferring to an authority. I must be mistaken of course.
I guess I see that dedicated Buddhists are wiser and kinder than those of other faiths. Not that others aren't kind and wise just that Buddhists are more so.
hmm... so much for personal experience.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
And of course, Buddhism has its ultimate authority figure -- Buddha.
Of course there is the Kalama sutra
Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.
I think that this sets Buddhism apart in regards to belief in an authority.
Funny but it appears at though you are deferring to an authority. I must be mistaken of course.
I think that there is a difference between referring to an authority that offers some evidence or reason behind what they say and an authority that asks you to believe them simply because they have access to privileged knowledge.
Like if I were to be doing some sort of science I might base much of my work on the authority of previous findings as opposed to believing contraception is wrong because the authority of the Catholic church says so.
In each case we can use the word authority, the difference is where they get their authority from.
I think that there is a difference between referring to an authority that offers some evidence or reason behind what they say and an authority that asks you to believe them simply because they have access to privileged knowledge.
Okay, where's the evidence in Buddhism? Do you know anyone who has achieved the cessation of suffering?
Like if I were to be doing some sort of science I might base much of my work on the authority of previous findings as opposed to believing contraception is wrong because the authority of the Catholic church says so.
The use of contraception may be a moral question, but is it a scientific one?
In each case we can use the word authority, the difference is where they get their authority from.
I don't know if it makes much sense comparing scientific data to an authority figure.
@Nirvana, the third noble truth happens again and again during our lives. 3NT is not the finish line you experience at the end.
So by feeling out your own experience you can tell that suffering formations do cease and that practice, scrutiny/consideration, and effort facilitate that ala the 4NT. You make it fresh every day like fresh baked bread.
the third noble truth happens again and again during our lives.
As does suffering. Oh wait, I think I get it now. This is where no-self thing comes into play. There was other me's who suffered but they no longer exist, so that suffering ceased... oh no! That doesn't work because of the SEEDS. The seeds or causes have not been exhausted, hence the "again and again." Anyway, what are you trying to say?
Okay, where's the evidence in Buddhism? Do you know anyone who has achieved the cessation of suffering?
I'm saying that we already experience the third noble truth. It's not at the 'end' of the eightfold path. So in your practice you see how your mind is and then apply awareness training. The mind training what you do every day forever.
I think that there is a difference between referring to an authority that offers some evidence or reason behind what they say and an authority that asks you to believe them simply because they have access to privileged knowledge.
Okay, where's the evidence in Buddhism? Do you know anyone who has achieved the cessation of suffering?
Like if I were to be doing some sort of science I might base much of my work on the authority of previous findings as opposed to believing contraception is wrong because the authority of the Catholic church says so.
The use of contraception may be a moral question, but is it a scientific one?
In each case we can use the word authority, the difference is where they get their authority from.
I don't know if it makes much sense comparing scientific data to an authority figure.
If you have not seen any evidence for Buddhism it can only be because you have not looked. There is loads of it.
Nobody has compared scientific data to an authority figure.
Okay, where's the evidence in Buddhism? Do you know anyone who has achieved the cessation of suffering?
I'm saying that we already experience the third noble truth. It's not at the 'end' of the eightfold path. So in your practice you see how your mind is and then apply awareness training. The mind training what you do every day forever. This is exactly what I've been talking about. Some believe that we go on suffering "every day forever" and that the very core truth in Buddhism, that there is a cessation of suffering, is not true, but nevertheless they find meaning in Buddhism.
In religion meaning is essential, truth is not essential.
What should we do when we find out that one of our meaningful beliefs is not true? Should we we keep it because it is meaningful, or should we abandon it because it is false? I take it that we are supposed to keep it, since truth is not important when it comes to religion.
If you feel that it does not matter whether your beliefs are true or false just as long as they are meaningful that's fine, it's a free country, but it rules out any sensible discussion about philosophy or religion. Our beliefs and opinions would need have no relation to what is the case, and we wouldn't even care what is the case. No point is even discussing what is the case. We would only be concerned with whatever ideas seemed 'meaningful' to us. This will differ from person to person, so meaning is a relative property. What is meaningful to one person may not be meaningful to another. So religion would be a personal construct and we can believe anything old thing we like. Phooey.
The idea that in religion truth is not essential, that religious 'truths' may be meaningful but false, is the sort of idea I'd expect to come from someone like Richard Dawkins.
If someone can find Buddhism useful while believing that the Noble Truth are false then this is a very difficult idea to understand, but perhaps it could happen. This would not alter the fact that the four noble truths are either true or false, and if they are false then Buddhism is nonsense. Unfortunately being meaningful does not prevent an idea from being nonsense.
What should we do when we find out that one of our meaningful beliefs is not true? Should we we keep it because it is meaningful, or should we abandon it because it is false? I take it that we are supposed to keep it, since truth is not important when it comes to religion.
I would say that truth is important in just about every situation, it's just not essential in every situation.
If you feel that it does not matter whether your beliefs are true or false just as long as they are meaningful that's fine, it's a free country, but it rules out any sensible discussion about philosophy or religion.
On the contrary, for philosophy that is, because philosophy seeks truth. Disregard for truth and rationality ain't do'n philosophy.
What is meaningful to one person may not be meaningful to another. So religion would be a personal construct and we can believe anything old thing we like.
If this were not the case how could there be so many different religions, many of which have very divergent Truths?
The idea that in religion truth is not essential, that religious 'truths' may be meaningful but false, is the sort of idea I'd expect to come from someone like Richard Dawkins.
Atheists have their own truths, which may be just as false.
What the Buddha said is that what the Buddha said is true. So I'm confused to find myself on a Buddhist site having to defend the idea that it matters what is true, and even that there is such a thing as truth. I cannot get my head around the idea.
Everywhere you look the scientist is arguing with the religious. More often than not it descends into nothing more than a farcical excuse to be rude, though here it seems more civil.
One truth is that scientific fact is not equal to religious truth. Science is concerned with mundane material measurements and does not have the capacity to measure spiritual things, yet it kids itself into thinking it has the monopoly on truth because it seems to have had successes in the past at rational explainations.
But I would no more ask a scientist about the how to progress spiritually than I would ask a mechanic where I should drive my car.
So if verifiable data as to the existence of Kamma is not yet forthcoming it is due to the lack of ability in measuring it rather than whether it exists or not.
Prior to 1996 most scientists would swear blind there were no planets around other stars. Then it was discovered that there was one orbiting Pegasi 51. Today consensus is that most single stars have planets. The history of science is cock-a-block with these reversals and yet never do they learn the mistakes of the past.
Yes, and I'm all for that. I'm wrong all the time and learn by my mistakes. The problem is talking in an authoritative manner about unproven things, and expecting scientific explainations for everything. Every discipline has its limits.
The problem is talking in an authoritative manner about unproven things, and expecting scientific explanations for everything. Every discipline has its limits.
Not sure what this particularly has to do with science.
Comments
Vajrayana /Dzogchen stands or falls on the authority of the Guru. Once you have committed to one ( and you are urged to examine her/his lineage and authority until you are sure ) you pretty much just turn up and do as you are told.
Obviously its self selecting to a degree...lol.
"The ultimate fruition of the thodgal practices is a body of pure light, called a rainbow body (Wylie 'ja' lus, pronounced Jalü.)[2] If the four visions of thogal are not completed before death, then at death, from the point of view of an external observer, the following happens: the corpse does not start to decompose, but starts to shrink until it disappears. Usually fingernails, toenails and hair are left behind[3] (see e.g. Togden Urgyen Tendzin, Ayu Khandro, Changchub Dorje.) The attainment of the rainbow body is typically accompanied by the appearance of lights and rainbows.[2]"
I have no idea whether this is true, but there doesn't seem to be anything alogical about it. Either it is true or it isn't. I can see why someone might dismiss it as nonsense, but not what is alogical about it.
Funny but it appears at though you are deferring to an authority. I must be mistaken of course.
I think that there is a difference between referring to an authority that offers some evidence or reason behind what they say and an authority that asks you to believe them simply because they have access to privileged knowledge.
Like if I were to be doing some sort of science I might base much of my work on the authority of previous findings as opposed to believing contraception is wrong because the authority of the Catholic church says so.
In each case we can use the word authority, the difference is where they get their authority from.
So by feeling out your own experience you can tell that suffering formations do cease and that practice, scrutiny/consideration, and effort facilitate that ala the 4NT. You make it fresh every day like fresh baked bread.
If you have not seen any evidence for Buddhism it can only be because you have not looked. There is loads of it.
Nobody has compared scientific data to an authority figure.
This is exactly what I've been talking about. Some believe that we go on suffering "every day forever" and that the very core truth in Buddhism, that there is a cessation of suffering, is not true, but nevertheless they find meaning in Buddhism.
In religion meaning is essential, truth is not essential.
If you feel that it does not matter whether your beliefs are true or false just as long as they are meaningful that's fine, it's a free country, but it rules out any sensible discussion about philosophy or religion. Our beliefs and opinions would need have no relation to what is the case, and we wouldn't even care what is the case. No point is even discussing what is the case. We would only be concerned with whatever ideas seemed 'meaningful' to us. This will differ from person to person, so meaning is a relative property. What is meaningful to one person may not be meaningful to another. So religion would be a personal construct and we can believe anything old thing we like. Phooey.
The idea that in religion truth is not essential, that religious 'truths' may be meaningful but false, is the sort of idea I'd expect to come from someone like Richard Dawkins.
If someone can find Buddhism useful while believing that the Noble Truth are false then this is a very difficult idea to understand, but perhaps it could happen. This would not alter the fact that the four noble truths are either true or false, and if they are false then Buddhism is nonsense. Unfortunately being meaningful does not prevent an idea from being nonsense.
All this going back and forth about things that are essentially hypothetical or semantic: what did Buddha say 'bout things like that?
One truth is that scientific fact is not equal to religious truth. Science is concerned with mundane material measurements and does not have the capacity to measure spiritual things, yet it kids itself into thinking it has the monopoly on truth because it seems to have had successes in the past at rational explainations.
But I would no more ask a scientist about the how to progress spiritually than I would ask a mechanic where I should drive my car.
So if verifiable data as to the existence of Kamma is not yet forthcoming it is due to the lack of ability in measuring it rather than whether it exists or not.
Prior to 1996 most scientists would swear blind there were no planets around other stars. Then it was discovered that there was one orbiting Pegasi 51. Today consensus is that most single stars have planets. The history of science is cock-a-block with these reversals and yet never do they learn the mistakes of the past.