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.
Interesting Website
I am certainly not endorsing this website link or arguing about its views. However I am very interested in hearing what people say about it. While striking me as superficial I find it very healthy to think critically about the arguments of those who question your beliefs.
http://www.thebuddhawaswrong.com/
http://www.thebuddhawaswrong.com/
0
Comments
The main problem, it seems to me, is the confusion between Buddhisms and the Dharma. the former are human creations, impermanent and unsatisfactory, the latter is not. The fact that truths of the Dharma can be glimpsed outwith the Buddhisms is only evidence of its universality.
I am glad that someone else is challenging the dogmatic sectarianism that we sometimes find (not on these boards, of course) and has d has also been unable to find an accurate attribution of the Einstein quotation. I have searched his writings in vain for it.
It is unfortunate that Craig finds it necessary to be quite so hostile in his comments. Dialogue cannot arise from such hostility.
a implies b (if the brain is the cause of consciousness it will emit some form of detectable emf)
b is true (we detect emf)
Therefore, a is true (the brain is the cause of consciousness)
As we can see, the proof is, first of all, based upon a concealed hypothetical. It begs the question, in other words. In addition, it completely overlooks the fact that consciousness might be, instead, stimulating the brain which transcends emf (it could be a form of aether, instead). If the evidence is to be convincing neuroscience must show that there is no other way that can account for consciousness except that it is a creation of the brain. Thus far it has not.
We might also illustrate this fallacy this way:
a implies b (if a heavenly creator exists there will be a created world)
b is true (there is a created world)
Therefore, a is true (there is a heavenly creator, i.e., God)
Again, there might be another way to account for a created world other than by a heavenly creator.
Love ya'all,
Bobby
I was invited to participate via a PM on E-sangha, and so I decided to join. I felt that perhaps I could learn something new by keeping an open mind as well as correct certain misunderstandings that people have about Buddhism in general. I am an advocate of free speech, and I believe that everyone has the right to critque anything that they disagree with; however, I also believe that people should at least possess a reasonable amount of knowledge in regard to the subject they are critiquing. As a contributor to that site, my goal is simply to help provide that knowledge whenever I feel it might be beneficial (which is not very often). Nevertheless, in my opinion, the atmosphere and language on that forum are not very conducive to level-headed and respectful discussions. Therefore, while I applaud the ideal behind the site, I do not applaud the conduct of its members. Perhaps sometime in the future the site will become a place for serious intellectual discussions about Buddhism and its potential areas of conflict with science, but I think that is entirely up to the direction that Craig and the other forum members wish to take in regard to their approach to this topic.
Jason
Buddhism is not part of unverifiable metaphysics. It can be verified by meditation but not by everyone, anymore than everyone can verify a new mathematical proof. I have certainly verified, by the Buddha's meditation, that there is a superessential reality which I know and see animating my body. It is called the Dharmakaya. I have also verified the manomayakaya. I have also verified gnostic Christianity and the words of the 'living Jesus' (not the flesh one of later Christianity or in Mel Gibson's movie "Flogging"
Love ya'll,
Bobby
After all, the same could be said of higher mathematics or physics or any discipline requiring study and reflection. The very large (cosmology) and the very small can appear 'metaphysical' without the appropriate instruments to observe them. It is all the Buddha asked us to do and - as this is for Bobby as well as others - I believe that it is what Jesus and his student companions urged also.
What exactly is a scientific dictatorship? And I would say that people should believe in these religions only as far as there is good reason to do so.
A scientific dictatorship is such that all of man's life is subsumed under rationalization (Weber). Rationalization, ultimately leads to dehumanization. With regard to the rationalization of religion, its development is guided by the intellect; noticeably the sensory intellect (manovijnana/dianoetic). There is no room, in other words, for the mystical in religion because the mystical transcends the range of the intellect. However, when the Buddha said the following its meaning went beyond the limits of intellect.
This can be verified through meditation which provides access to the transcendent. The transcendent is also understood is physics under such names as 'zero point energy', 'string theory', 'aether', 'torsion waves' (N.A. Kozyrev), space, etc. The transcendent as non-local, non-physical reality is a fact even though the average people lacks the capacity to verify it.
The Buddha and later Gnostics recognized this non-local, non-physical reality as the light of life, which animates the physical body or the pûti-kaya. It has various names such as the clear light, or the substance of pure mind. In other places it is referred to as the manomayakaya, i.e., the spiritual body. When our mind is rightly concentrated, purified, and radiant, free of interference waves, pliant, and steady, one can develop a spiritual body which is complete in every way.
This spiritual body is the body of the Bodhisattva and the 'living Christ'. According to the Mahavastu a work which comes by way of the Mahasamghika sect, the Buddha, as a Bodhisattva, is born with a spiritual body instead of a physical body.
While this all sounds fantastic, for those who undertake the practice and study of meditation, not any of this is far fetched. However, in Western culture such practices are often marginalized. Asians, on the other hand, have a better understanding of the limits of rationalization in which it stays out of religion.
Love ya'all,
Bobby
For some reason this whole discussion is deeply troubling to me. I am a rational, secular person and I see reason as permiating every area of life--even the metaphysical.
This sounds like that same thing I hear from Christians from time to time--that they know God exists because they feel his presence and he talks to them every morning. However, I've had those sort of experiences myself and found them to be of very little substance...
I've found the best route for me is to just ignore the metaphysical stuff that currently makes no sense to me, keep practicing and see what happens. I'm open, but I'll not believe this sort of thing (reincarnation, etc) until I've seen it for myself. I'm open to it, but until I see/experience it for myself I will just have to remain agnostic about it...
I am in agreement. Given that it is estimated some 100 billion or so humans have died throughout the course of history, and not one has come back to tell us anything, any claim about the afterlife immediately falls under suspicion in my book.
Here's some good reading about meditation from a more secular standpoint...
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/01/consciousness_without_faith_1.html
I should have it known that I meditate on a daily basis and share the thoughts of Mr. Harris in his article. I find a quiet place and just follow my breath for a given amount of time. I feel relaxed, less worried, and more mentally in tune with my surroundings. There is nothing "fantastic" I have to accept nor for that matter, anything to be taken on faith, in order for me to have these experiences. And although I may not fully understand the complexity of my mind during these instances of deep awareness, I feel quite sure that there is nothing otherworldly about them. They are the result different brain activities and focused attention.
Do you have any information to the contrary? Normal experince tells us that those who die don't come back to talk to us, but if you know of any exceptions to the rule, please share.
I don't mean any offence. It's just that I know of no verifiable instances of someone coming back from the dead or speaking to us from the 'afterlife'. It's fair, I think--as a tentative belief--to assume there are no such instances.
Where I would disagree with you, starstuff, is with your last statement. I think that the useful approach is to say that we do not have adequate evidence, which does not mean that the dead do not manage to communicate with the living but, simply, that we have not been able to establish the facts one way or the other yet.
Much of what we believe is based on the word of others. Few of us, for example have seen a 'bozon' or any other 'fundamental particle' - even the scientists studying them know of them by their effects rather than by direct observation. We accept also that the speed of light is a constant, although we have no direct evidence other than it enables our formulae to work.
The genuinely skeptical mind will test and test and test again and, having reached an apparent conclusion, appreciate that it is only a way-station towards the truth - whatever that may be. In the case of post-mortem survival and communication, the fact that there is a weight of anecdote but no scientific, repeatable, experimental data so far should not stop us from continuing to examine the matter. We will, however, stop if we take it into our heads that it does not happen.
Some of the more mystical writers have suggested, as do many Hindus, that this life is nothing more than a dream. were that to be the case, how would you expect the awoken to communicate? Do you manage (or, indeed, want) to send messages from your waking state to some dream you had last night?
Of course Simon. This is why I said it is a tenative belief. Scientific belief is always open to new evidence.
I suppose I don't. But the underwhelming amount of evidence pointing to post-mortem communication is embarrassingly scarce. People who claim to communicate with the dead (Syliva Brown anyone?) almost always turn out to be fraudulent quacks looking to make a quick buck.
They tell us how..."old Auntie Lou just loves what you did to the kitchen...that new wallpaper is just gorgeous...etc..." All these alleged conversations with the dead are engineered to be purposely vague as to allow for any number of interpretations.
So until any credible evidence surfaces in favor of dead people talking (who are so bored in the afterlife as to comment on interior design), I shall have no reason to believe in it.
For my own part, I have found that many aspects of Buddhism have been labelled as "superstitious" more out of ignorance of their actually uses than anything else. For example, many people misunderstand the real purposes of chanting — purposes such as preserving teachings by memorizing them and passing them down orally, calming discurisive thinking, strengthening mindfulness, showing respect to the Buddha and his teachings, et cetera — and subsequently label chanting as being "superstitious". To say that chanting is superstitious might true if those chanting were to believe that the words themselves had some magical power that was released when the words are spoken correctly or whatnot, but that is certainly not a standard belief that is supported by the Buddha's teachings. Just for reference, to give an example of one the more practical uses of chanting that is found within the Pali Canon, the Buddha advises Maha Moggallana to "repeat aloud in detail the Dhamma as you have heard and memorized it" in order to shake off and overcome drowsiness when practicing meditation (AN 7.58).
That being said, in my view, there is a lot in Buddhism which is difficult, if not impossible, to prove. The literal interpretation of rebirth is one of them. I know of no way in which to scientifically prove or verify that this phenomena is at all possible—all of the most convicing evidence I have seen in support of this possibility has been in the form of case studies and first-hand accounts. Nevertheless, rebirth is an important part of Buddhism, and when it comes to things such as rebirth, what does one consider to be acceptable evidence? Would a direct personal experience, for example, be evidence enough for one to accept something? If the answer is yes, how can one fault the Buddha for teaching about rebirth if he had evidence in the form of a direct personal experience of past life memories? This happened at a time when experiences were all one really had to go on. In addition, while I understand that scientists today have put forth a lot of evidence to support the idea that these experiences can be accounted for, especially in the field of modern psychology, that does not necessarily negate such experiences.
In Buddhist cosmology, there are said to be heaven (sagga) realms and there hell (niraya) realms; however, rebirth into any of these realms is said to be temporary. As for the nature of these realms, in Theravada, these realms are generally treated as literal, external realms of existence where rebirth is possible due to the ripening of wholesome or unwholesome kamma. It is also said those with the divine eye (dibba-cakkhu) can see these beings vanishing and reappearing. In Mahayana, the experiences of these realms are generally seen as real experiences, although there is no external location that corresponds to these realms (i.e. they are mentally fabricated realities based upon wholesome or unwholesome kamma). All in all, my personal belief is that rebirth into any of these realms is a possiblity; although, I am also open to the possibility that these are merely methaphorical descriptions of various pleasant and unpleasant mental states (for more information, or just a quick reference to these planes and the corresponding causes of rebirth there, please see The Thirty-one Planes of Existence).
Sincerely,
Jason
So, what I was actually trying to say was that I didn't think KOB had enough information to say that no one has ever been reborn or reincarnated and come back to tell us about it. No one can make that statement because no one, other than perhaps an enlightened being, could ever have enough knowledge or information to do so.
Hope that clears up my very unimportant interruption in this conversation.
Personally, I have confidence in the truth of rebirth because I have confidence in the things the Buddha taught that I have experienced first hand. Everything I've studied, practiced, experienced first hand, and understood so far about the Buddha's teachings (which is not a lot since I'm still a beginner) has turned out to be true and effective. I have, therefore, no reason to doubt the teachings I have yet to experience and understand for myself. So I'll keep an open mind and if I come up with any personal experiential proof, you folks will be the first to know.