Bibilcal Swine?

You are a gentleman Erik. It's been good to have the debate and I've learnt much from your posts.

You say that you "do not believe that the mere belief in Jesus will get me in and I just have to do it myself".

With this one point you've got right to the heart of the matter. I sincerely believe that this is indeed all you have to do; believe and trust that Jesus has done all that needs to be done, and you can't add to that. Erik, I pray that in time you will be able to accept that.

God bless, Chris

quote:

Perhaps you could direct me to the scientific evidence?

Go to Quantum Buddhsimand download The Introduction and Chapter One at the bottom of the page. There are many quotes from famous quantum theorists set side by side with quotes from the madhyamaka with a commentary to both. If you wish, having read these I am happy to send you additional chapters.

quote:

Could I also say, and no disrespect intended, that it seems to me that Buddhism is a belief system - in a similar way that religions are belief systems - and as such has no more (subject to the evidence requested) of a cogent empirical basis.

I have to say I disagree. Buddhism is very different to other religions. It can, of course be accessed on different levels. As a philosophy, as a psychtherapy and if one wants as a religion or all three. No act of faith is required for the first two. A limited amount of faith may sometimes be required for aspects of the third but quite unlike that required by other religions.

quote:

This seems to me the essential difference between faith or philosophy based conception of the universe and the, for want of a better word, rational view. With religions faith is all you need; with Buddhism and its ilk acceptance of the philosophical basis is all you need.

If by rational view you mean scientific you will find upon careful reading of much of what scientists write that it is their view that requires faith and that their blind belief, even in the face of much evidence is more like religion than Buddhism is like religion. Do I go too far? You will be surprised. Have a read of the first chapter on the quantum buddhism website and as I say I will gladly e-mail subsequent chapters to you and you will see the Science community hang themselves by their own petards.

Regards,

Erik

Erik,
With respect, the explanation you give above to the question if Quantum physics can be used as a basis for arguing about worlds of illusion and reality does not add up.
Quantum physics occurs in the world as we know it, albeit in a not easily accessible realm but, none the less, in the “common” world. If this is so then how can we tell if we are being deceived by our limited human logic?

Of course there are many theories about the reality as we know it and the “ideal” reality, or “ultimate” reality. Plato’s forms or as Berkley’s idealism, or even as mentioned Christian “mysticism” and they come to different conclusions. What I am getting at is they are all irrefutable, as nothing in the reality as we know it can be used to refute them, nothing we perceive can be said to be ultimately fact.

I can easily accept the theory of a further reality than the one that we perceive, but this does not automatically lead to Buddhism. Because a theory cannot be proved erroneous, the conclusion is not that it is fact.

On a different theme, where does the logic or science apply to the Buddhist belief in reincarnation, or some form of “rebirth” if you prefer? If you do not believe in a soul as such, (as I thought was the Buddhist belief?) what part of the “self” do you believe goes on in some way to live again?

The teachings of Buddha are well thought out and if followed, I agree could be used as a philosophy to live by, and a very good one. Also as psychotherapy as you said, but as a religion it does not IMHO stand up to “razor sharp logic” but requires the same leap of faith as other religions.

John

quote:

Also as psychotherapy as you said, but as a religion it does not IMHO stand up to “razor sharp logic” but requires the same leap of faith as other religions.

The birth of the Buddha, as traditionally told, requires at least a leap of faith and lacks "razor sharp logic" IMhO. Makes the "virgin birth" more believable (again IMhO) since there are no other "documented" cases of elephant-human cross-breeding...
From the Wikipedia

quote:

Siddhartha's birth was an auspicious one. His mother dreamt one night that an elephant with six tusks and a head the colour of rubies came down from the highest heaven and entered her womb on the right side. Eight Brahmins told her husband the child would be holy and achieve perfect wisdom. Later she entered the garden of Lumbini with her attendants, and walked beneath the Sala tree, which bent down. The queen took hold of the branch and looked up to the heavens. At that moment Siddhartha was born out of her side. He immediately took seven steps towards each quarter of heaven, and at each step a lotus flower sprung up. He then declared he would have no more births, that this was his last body and he would pluck out by the roots sorrow caused by birth and death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

David

quote:

ith respect, the explanation you give above to the question if Quantum physics can be used as a basis for arguing about worlds of illusion and reality does not add up.
Quantum physics occurs in the world as we know it, albeit in a not easily accessible realm but, none the less, in the “common” world. If this is so then how can we tell if we are being deceived by our limited human logic?

Someone said (I forget whom) 'if you are not completely shocked by Quantum theory you have not understood it'. Quantum theory tells us the world exists in a way that is completely at odds with our usual experience of the world and is completely at odds with classical Newtonian physics to the degree that many scientists simply assume that there must be something wrong with the science of quantum theory when in fact what is wrong is their interpretation of quantum theory and not necessarily the science itself.

You and I may have limited human logic but a Tibetan Buddhist monk hot-housed in a monastery since the age of eight who lives, breathes, eats and yes sleeps dharma (the teachings of Buddha) has a consciousness so sublime, pure and stable that he can meditate, single pointedly for months on end and has all kinds of ways of exploring reality that you, with respect, have no idea about because you have not done the same training (how could you?).

quote:

What I am getting at is they are all irrefutable, as nothing in the reality as we know it can be used to refute them, nothing we perceive can be said to be ultimately fact.

They are absolutely refutable both philosophically and experientially. Buddhism is a science - it is a science of the mind but it is a science.

'Reality as we know it' - LOL. So tell me what reality is? When you have spent years training your mind to observe itself and find it's own ultimate nature you will know the difference between dull, gross and limited and sublime, luminescent and free from obstructions.

quote:

On a different theme, where does the logic or science apply to the Buddhist belief in reincarnation, or some form of “rebirth” if you prefer?

I don't know what science has to say about rebirth although some research reported in The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Association confirmed that there were a great many reports of patients seemingly coming back to life after having been declared dead but I can't comment really.

quote:

If you do not believe in a soul as such, (as I thought was the Buddhist belief?) what part of the “self” do you believe goes on in some way to live again?

In Buddhism there are three levels of mind Gross, subtle and very subtle. The gross mind is our waking mind, the mind of our senses etc.

The sutble mind is our dream mind, the mind we dream with when we sleep.

The very subtle mind usually only manifests during deep sleep and at the time of death. Usually becasue we are not trained we cannot recognise the 'clearlight of sleep' or the 'clearlight of death' or even recognise our more gross dream mind. Experienced meditators can, of course recognise their own dream mind and use it to meditate with during sleep, yep they can completely control their dreams. Very advanced meditators can recognise the clearlight of sleep and use that to meditate with while sleeping!

It is the very subtle mind or clearlight mind that leaves the body at death and migrates but if we are untrained we cannot recognise it at death any more than we can recognise it during our sleep. If however, we can recognise and control this mind at death we can choose our rebirth. The process of death, intermediate state and rebirth is like the process of sleep, dreaming and waking.

The gross minds dissolve into subtle mind and dreaming takes place, then the subtle dream mind dissolves into the very subtle clearlight of sleep. After awhile the dream mind enfolds out of the very subtle mind and dreaming takes place again then the mind becomes more and more gross until one wakes. The process of the mind dissolving into more subtle levels are recognisable and unmistakable to the trained meditator. There are several levels and each has it's own sign. The signs/levels are reversed in order when awaking or coming out of meditation or on being reborn.

During death the minds dissolve in exactly the same way until the clearlight of death manifests but this time this mind leaves the body and enters the intermediate state (like a dream state when we were 'alive')before taking rebirth when the very subtle mind enters the new union of sperm and egg and the mind becomes more gross. There is no soul that migrates because a soul is fixed and unchanging whereas the very sutble mind does change. Our mental continuum has no beginning and no end. It is related to our brain but does not come from our brain nor is it a mere epiphenomomen of our our brain. The is no 'self' either as self is merely imputed by a conceptual mind (a gross mind) which imputes a different 'I' depending on each different body. In a sense, then, it is not 'you' that we will be reborn at all, your mental coninuum will simply ....continue, this time in a new body and through familiarity you will impute 'I' on the new body, but the new body is not the real 'you' cos the real you has no identity and continues long after the body has died. See? Clear as mud ain't it?

The clearlight mind is non-dual, non-conceptual and is free from obstruction and defilements. It is how one experiences ultimate reality.

quote:

The teachings of Buddha are well thought out and if followed, I agree could be used as a philosophy to live by, and a very good one. Also as psychotherapy as you said, but as a religion it does not IMHO stand up to “razor sharp logic” but requires the same leap of faith as other religions.

Ultimate reality is beyond words, thoughts and expression as it is non-dual, non-conceptual and undiffereniated etc. Buddha knew this but how to teach it? How do you get from where we are to where an enlightened being is if where an enlightened being is is beyond words, thoughts and expression. Well buddha taught a variety of ways to gradually purify the mind until it is stable enough to meditate on ultimate reality directly. One method is for the meditator to receive blessings from buddhas (the word blessing is translated from Tibetan as 'mind transformation')- having received some quantifiable benefit from applying simple philosophical or psychological teachings the inexperienced meditator may well decide to suspend disbelief in holy beings (as I did)and have a bash and maybe just maybe will feel his/her mind to have been 'transformed' even if only a little and then maybe encouraged to try some more and then progress to the different levels of tantra about which more later maybe.

All the best,

Erik

Hello David,

LOL, yes sounds barmy I agree and I neither believe nor disbelive. I don't believe because I do not have to, it simply is not a requirement to believe in Buddha's divine birth like it is a requirement to belive in Jesus's. I don't disbelieve as I recognise there may be some symbolism going and is not meant to be taken literally.

If one could prove that Jesus did not exist or could prove he was not the son of God then Christianity would suffer enormously. However, if you proved the Buddha did not exist or was not divine then it would not matter at all. The teachings either work or they do not and Buddhism stands or falls on that alone. The fact they do work IF APPLIED cannot be denied by anyone who has tried them.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

If one could prove that Jesus did not exist or could prove he was not the son of God then Christianity would suffer enormously.

So true.
And it seems people line up to do so. Something about Jesus' existence must be threatening to them and I don't understand why.
As to proving either point, it is just as impossible to prove whether the Buddha did or didn't come from a ruby-faced, six-tusked heavenly elephant impregnating a woman through the side of her uterus.
On another note I am completely enjoying your posts, please keep it up!
David

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
Even a cursory reading of the reports into the Popes last hours show that he was not a realised being who had control over his death process but I know many Buddhists who do!

Really? Please tell more.

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
If one could prove that Jesus did not exist or could prove he was not the son of God then Christianity would suffer enormously. However, if you proved the Buddha did not exist or was not divine then it would not matter at all. The teachings either work or they do not and Buddhism stands or falls on that alone.

I don't quite agree here. As you say, "The teachings either work or they do not" and this is as true for Christianity as it is for Buddhism. In the wonderful book "Living With The Himalayan Masters" by Swami Rama, one of the masters is given a copy of the New Testament. After reading it he described Christianity in essence as 'the triumph of love over suffering'. Looked at in this light is Christianity so different to Buddhism?

Furthermore, if Jesus could be accepted as the son of God but only in the sense that we are all the sons (or daughters) of God, Christianity could take a giant leap forward. As long as Jesus is seen as a man, albeit an enlightened man, he can be held up as an example for Christians to try to emulate. As a god, this is out of the question.

Finally Eric, in your analysis of the God-believing religions, I wonder whether you're making the same mistake that many atheists or agnostics seem to make. Non believers tend to have an image of God as some sort of wise old man in the sky. In fact, most believers have no such illusions. The statement in the Bible that man was created in God's image need not be taken to personify God. Perhaps one can see instead, a divine aspect to man.

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
The statement in the Bible that man was created in God's image need not be taken to personify God. Perhaps one can see instead, a divine aspect to man.

It's this sort of equivocation that gives religion a bad name. The constant reinterpretation of Scripture to make it seem less bizarre (more relevant?) to modern thinking really underminds the basic principles. Does God exist as some entity or is it only a pholosophical concept and the Bible a huge mataphor?

And, for Eric, having read the quantum Buddhism link, it is clear that there is no science in Buddhism merely an attempt to interpret science to fit Buddhist philosophy.

I have no problem in people believing what they want or subscribing to any philosophy they want, what annoys me is their proselytising about it - not that I am suggesting that 7V is trying to do that.

quote:

Really? Please tell more.

About controlling the death process or about the Pope drifting in and out of consciousness or the seemingly contradictory 'he was suffering but was at peace' thing?

quote:

I don't quite agree here. As you say, "The teachings either work or they do not" and this is as true for Christianity as it is for Buddhism. In the wonderful book "Living With The Himalayan Masters" by Swami Rama, one of the masters is given a copy of the New Testament. After reading it he described Christianity in essence as 'the triumph of love over suffering'. Looked at in this light is Christianity so different to Buddhism?

I thought the Unique Selling Point of Christianity was the promise of eternal life through Jesus. If you take that away then what is left?

quote:

'the triumph of love over suffering'. Looked at in this light is Christianity so different to Buddhism?

I don't say it is completely different and what difference there is is a question of degree so of course I have to agree with you here.

quote:

Furthermore, if Jesus could be accepted as the son of God but only in the sense that we are all the sons (or daughters) of God, Christianity could take a giant leap forward. As long as Jesus is seen as a man, albeit an enlightened man, he can be held up as an example for Christians to try to emulate. As a god, this is out of the question.

Well I don't be believe in a creator God and I believe the existence of God can be refuted so I don't think any of us are sons or daughters but I agree there may be some benefit to thinking like this. Yes, I agree that it should be a Christians practice to emulate Jesus. I believe that and that alone is what makes one a Christian regardless of any baptism or label. I was much impressed by the Christian mother of a Buddhist friend of mine who said that the first thing she did on waking was to think of Jesus at her heart and to make a strong determination to think, speak and act as Jesus would have done all throught the day and on retiring to bed at night would pray not to be separated from Jesus even in her sleep. I think in this she was being a true Christian and practising in a similar way to a Buddhist.

quote:

Finally Eric, in your analysis of the God-believing religions, I wonder whether you're making the same mistake that many atheists or agnostics seem to make. Non believers tend to have an image of God as some sort of wise old man in the sky. In fact, most believers have no such illusions. The statement in the Bible that man was created in God's image need not be taken to personify God. Perhaps one can see instead, a divine aspect to man.

Is there any extensive description/definition of God to be found anywhere that is considered to beyond question? In my experience if you get 50 believers in a room they have 50 different definitions. Epicurus famously refuted the existence of God based on the most often cited definitions. 'Perhaps one can see instead, a divine aspect to man' - now here you make a very good point in my view and I would agree with you whole-heartedly. I think perhaps a good analogy would be to describe our minds as being a bit like a container filled with pure water but muddied. You might say that muddy water is not pure water but in a way the mud does not fundamentally change the pure water because if we filtered the mud out then we are left with.....pure water. This is like the mind, it's essential purity and clarity is obscured by defilements. Our minds are very unruly and we are driven by all kinds of cravings and so this is like the container being shaken and so the mud never settles obscruring our mind from realising it's own clarity. However through spiritual practice (note I do not say Buddhist as Buddhism is not unique in this aspect)we can allow the mud to settle on the bottom and let some purer form of clarity through. Where I think that Buddhism is unique are the mechanisms for getting at the stuff that settles at the bottom once if you can get it to settle at all which one can only do through meditation or years of heartfelt prayer and monastic life. This essential purity of our root mind (the mind that goes from life to life)is a part of us all, it is our essential nature and it's waiting to be uncovered in all of us and in this at least I completely agree with you.

I do not think of God as a person sitting on a cloud and never have, that idea is ludicrous in the extreme. If anything I would say that it is us who create God in our image but that's a another story. If you read a detailed description of the mind of full enlightenment you would say it was God in all it's qualities except one - the creator bit. However, insofar as we all create this world ourselves we would not be so apart on that one either.

Thanks for your interesting post and let's all agree on the merits of using love to triumph over suffering.

All the best,

Erik

quote:

Does God exist as some entity or is it only a pholosophical concept and the Bible a huge mataphor?

The latter. Clearly.

quote:

And, for Eric, having read the quantum Buddhism link, it is clear that there is no science in Buddhism merely an attempt to interpret science to fit Buddhist philosophy.

Wow and that conclusion is based on reading one chapter? You are indeed a most clever man. What defines science as science? Can you tell me? Did you read the first chapter or merely make assumptions on a quick glance? Did you read the quotes from scientists themselves? do you know what merely means? Did you expect Buddhist formulas and chemical symbols or Buddhist mathematics? What the quantum buddhism work does it what it says it does in the introduction - if you don't get it then either you are not as bright as you think you are or I am wrong in which case offer me a sentance by sentance refution and I will consider them most carefully.

quote:

I have no problem in people believing what they want or subscribing to any philosophy they want, what annoys me is their proselytising about it - not that I am suggesting that 7V is trying to do that.

I agree wholeheartedly which is why I am writing this stuff - to show there are more ways of thinking about life and the universe than what we have been to taught to think.

quote:

- if you don't get it then either you are not as bright as you think you are or I am wrong in which case offer me a sentance by sentance refution and I will consider them most carefully.

Given that you are the one making the claims, the onus is on you to make the proof not for me to refute your proposition.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by erik scothron:

Someone said (I forget whom) 'if you are not completely shocked by Quantum theory you have not understood it'. Quantum theory tells us the world exists in a way that is completely at odds with our usual experience of the world and is completely at odds with classical Newtonian physics to the degree that many scientists simply assume that there must be something wrong with the science of quantum theory when in fact what is wrong is their interpretation of quantum theory and not necessarily the science itself.


Buddhism is a science - it is a science of the mind but it is a science.

'Reality as we know it' - LOL. So tell me what reality is?

Ultimate reality is beyond words.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The philosopher Immanuel Kant highlighted the difficulty of attempting to understand things beyond appearances i.e. what we see, or our experience of the world that comes through our senses (Empiricism). For example, if you put a pencil into a glass of water it appears bent. Our rational minds tell us the pencil remains straight and that its appearance is simply the result of light being refracted through the water, however, if we rely merely on what we observe, we fail to distinguish underlying reality.

The scientific method may be best thought of as a way of attempting to access objective reality. The Austrian philosopher of science Karl Popper posited that science cannot prove anything, merely disprove, or falsify. One can think of many scientific theories which were at one time accepted but have now been superceded. My own experience has taught me that the deeper into philosophy and physics you delve, the more the demarcation between physics, philosophy and theology becomes blurred. Highly interesting and stimulating though

[/QUOTE]

Given that you are the one making the claims, the onus is on you to make the proof not for me to refute your proposition. [/QUOTE]

Nigel,

You made the claim that 'it is clear that there is no science in Buddhism merely an attempt to interpret science to fit Buddhist philosophy'.

What is the thinking that led you to this view?

In fact there is no motivation to align Buddhism with science in order to gain credibility for Buddhism at all (if that is what you were implying). Why would a two legged athlete align himself with a one legged man to win a race?

There is an enormous convergence between the evidence of quantum theory and the Madhyamaka and an increasing awareness of this in the changing interpretation of quantum theory by some of it's less blinkered theorists but they, on masse, so to speak, still have a long way to go. They really are a confused bunch and I think this is very well demonstrated in the quantum buddhism work. Our whole view can't be put in just the first chapter Nigel.

I think your view: 'It's this sort of equivocation that gives religion a bad name. The constant reinterpretation of Scripture to make it seem less bizarre (more relevant?) to modern thinking really underminds the basic principles' is shared by the current and former Pope(?)but I believe quite the opposite is true.

Is it not this very stubborn sticking to the literal reading of the bible that gives religion a bad name? It is a thorny problem and not at all easy to evaluate but in my view there would be far less suffering in the world if the Catholic church at least had the flexibilty of mind to change it's medieval view on a variety of issues, then there would be fewer orphans in the Philippines and less AIDS in africa for starters (IMO).

This concept of the infallibilty of Popes or the infallibility or complete literal truth of the bible creates so much cognitive and spiritual dissonance that it is no wonder so many people constantly struggle with their faith and are looking else where for answers. Christianity et al stands on the literal truth of the bible and this is both a strength and a weakness IMO. Buddhism stands on it's verifiability. Indeed Buddha said 'do not believe these things I teach you just because I say you should, you should check every word as you would assay gold'. The overwhelming baulk of Buddha's teachings were meant as practical advice and were not theoretical mumblings or statements requiring faith.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by erik scothron:

Someone said (I forget whom) 'if you are not completely shocked by Quantum theory you have not understood it'. Quantum theory tells us the world exists in a way that is completely at odds with our usual experience of the world and is completely at odds with classical Newtonian physics to the degree that many scientists simply assume that there must be something wrong with the science of quantum theory when in fact what is wrong is their interpretation of quantum theory and not necessarily the science itself.


Buddhism is a science - it is a science of the mind but it is a science.

'Reality as we know it' - LOL. So tell me what reality is?

Ultimate reality is beyond words.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The philosopher Immanuel Kant highlighted the difficulty of attempting to understand things beyond appearances i.e. what we see, or our experience of the world that comes through our senses (Empiricism). For example, if you put a pencil into a glass of water it appears bent. Our rational minds tell us the pencil remains straight and that its appearance is simply the result of light being refracted through the water, however, if we rely merely on what we observe, we fail to distinguish underlying reality.

The scientific method may be best thought of as a way of attempting to access objective reality. The Austrian philosopher of science Karl Popper posited that science cannot prove anything, merely disprove, or falsify. One can think of many scientific theories which were at one time accepted but have now been superceded. My own experience has taught me that the deeper into philosophy and physics you delve, the more the demarcation between physics, philosophy and theology becomes blurred. Highly interesting and stimulating though

Malky,

Thanks for that. I agree. Up to a point. However we can refine the mind with training to go beyond mere appearances.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

Buddhism stands on it's verifiability.

Regards,

Erik

This is at the heart of the matter, is it not?

Where is this verification except in the minds of its disciples?

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Buddhism stands on it's verifiability.

Regards,

Erik

This is at the heart of the matter, is it not?

Where is this verification except in the minds of its disciples?

Where is the verification for anything outside of anyone's mind? Yes, this goes towards the heart of the matter I think. This is, in part, what Buddhism shows. Do you think scientific instruments make measurements separate from consciousness? If you dropped a ruler on the floor does it measure something on it's own?

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
The statement in the Bible that man was created in God's image need not be taken to personify God. Perhaps one can see instead, a divine aspect to man.

It's this sort of equivocation that gives religion a bad name. The constant reinterpretation of Scripture to make it seem less bizarre (more relevant?) to modern thinking really underminds the basic principles.

No, Nigel. It's the constant reinterpretation and reformation that gives religion a good name. What gives religion a bad name are those advocates who believe that every scribble is the precise and unchanging word of God and those who believe that what might have held true for life in the 7th century is equally valid today.

Regards
Steve

Erik, forgive me if I've missed this in amongst your earlier posts, but what exactly is the main purpose of following the teachings of Buddhism?

Is it to achieve a contented state of mind and relate to others in a peaceful, considerate manner? Obviously desirable, but is it the principal purpose?

Or is it achieve the succesful transfer of your mind (soul?) to another being upon death? And does this "death to life" mind transfer happen automatically or does it depend upon how successful you are at applying the Buddhist's techniques?

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
No, Nigel. It's the constant reinterpretation and reformation that gives religion a good name. What gives religion a bad name are those advocates who believe that every scribble is the precise and unchanging word of God and those who believe that what might have held true for life in the 7th century is equally valid today.

Regards
Steve

I think this is exactly right. I think the Bible needs to be read intellegently, with due regard to historical context as appropriate.

Virtually everything Jesus is reported to have said is in the form of parables or allegory. These are not meant to be taken word for word literally, but interpreted. That does not diminish its authority IMO.

quote:

And, for Eric, having read the quantum Buddhism link, it is clear that there is no science in Buddhism merely an attempt to interpret science to fit Buddhist philosophy.

Nigel,

A few more thoughts:

Science got off the ground by assuming that there were definite, self existing entities which were independent of all other self existting entities (Descartes). The success of this model was quite amazing. Why? Because at the macro level things do seem to function as independent self existing entities. At the end of the nineteenth century scientists generally thought that they had a complete description of the world sown up.

Now lets turn to Buddhist philosophy for a moment. The Madhyamaka, historically speaking, began with Nagarjuna. He asserted that on a conventional level of appearance things appeared to the foolish as if they had a definite independent existence. Indeed, according to him, the conventional world did function quite happily on this conventional level, however it was necessary to note that this world was a world of suffering. He then carried out an astonishing piece of philosophical analysis which demonstrated that this could not be the case, that it could not be the case that things were self existent entities. His argument, repeated in many guises and forms, is basically as follows;

The world can easily be seen to function according to causality. Without the causal process everything becomes static and unchangeable and there is no world of process.

NOW HERE IS THE IMPORTANT BIT-> According to Buddhist thought if two entities are completely self contained and self existent, which is to say that they are inherently existent independent of each other then they could not interact. THERE WOULD BE NO AREA OF COMMONALITY FOR THE INTERACTION.

So in order for causality to function all conventional entities must actually hover between existence and non-existence.

This was asserted by Buddhist philosophers 2000 years ago.

The problems of Black Body Radiation and the Photoelectric Effect resulted in quantum physics. According to the renowned quantum physicist Michio Kaku:

‘It is because electrons can hover between existence and non existence that the world functions‘.

THUS MODERN SCIENCE SHOWS THE BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHERS TO BE CORRECT.

This is the tip of the iceburg.

Emptiness is the basic ingredient of reality. Before you discuss this however you need to know a bit about how molecules function. Once you understand this you will know how precise the Buddhist analysis was! If you have no idea how the world functions because you don’t know about the peculiar abilities of electrons in particular, but actually all sub-atomic particles, which hover between existence and non-existence then it is difficult to see how you can discuss, intellectually, the nature of ultimate reality.

All sub-atomic particles exist in a state of potentiality until they are actualised by an intervention of consciousness, as physicist Henry Stapp says ‘Classical matter never existed, matter has moved towards mind’, and as the sixth centuary Buddhist philosopher Chandrakirti said ‘materialists and fools posit first causes and creator Gods’ as there are no evidence for first causes and creator Gods the world must be formed by mind alone.

Regards,

Erik

Hello Milo,

[QUOTEI is it to achieve a contented state of mind and relate to others in a peaceful, considerate manner? Obviously desirable, but is it the principal purpose?QUOTE]

In mayahana Buddhism there are basically three levels of practice1/ Intial scope - people who just want the contended, peaceful states you mention (and why not?)

2/ Intermediate scope - Those who wish to obtain Nirvana or personal liberation from the bonds of cyclic existence.

3/ Those who wish to obtain full enlightenment for the benefit of others.

Thus you could say that seeking full enlightenment for the benefit of others is the ultimate goal. When one actually engages in advanced practice with this motivation one becomes a Bodhisattva, there are 10 levels before becoming fully enlightend. The exact instructions for this are laid down and there is no hint of new age mumbo-jumbo or spiritual claptrap. A qualified book with these instructions are the true holy grail IMO and you may have walked past such a book in your local book shop without even knowing it! . Some Buddhists privately admit to the possibility that Jesus was a high level Bodhisattva (interestingly one meditation involves the visualising of taking on the suffering of other people and giving back healing love and maybe Jesus was doing this on the cross - but there is not the slightest evidence for this nor is such stuff taught - it's just the sort of things people ponder idly.

quote:

Or is it achieve the succesful transfer of your mind (soul?) to another being upon death? And does this "death to life" mind transfer happen automatically or does it depend upon how successful you are at applying the Buddhist's techniques?

The transfer of consciousness at death is the same for all sentient beings, animals too. Usually this is a totally uncontrolled not to mention scary business. The mind is usually very disturbed during death (unsurprisingly)and 'waking' up disembodied in the bardo or intermediate state bereft of friends and family and the things one is attached to is jolly scary.

Much of Tantric meditation is about preparing for this certain moment. Advanced meditators can cause their minds to dissolve into the clearlight mind at will and do so on a dialy basis and can thus choose their rebirth whereas the rest of us no-hopers take a totally uncontrolled rebirth and perpetuate the cycle of birth,aging, sickness and death. Only the enlightened being escapes this cycle.

This is a very basic description.

Regards,

Erik

'Reality as we know it' - LOL. So tell me what reality is?

Perhaps I should have said “conventional reality” as you call it.
You also wrote 'conventional reality' - how phenomena appear to exist (your 'reality as we know it') and 'ultimate reality' - which is how phenomena really exist upon analysis.

Would this analysis be performed within the “conventional reality” which is unreliable because it is “how phenomena appear to exist” and therefore “illusionary”.

If so, it is of no relevance to an “idealist” (in the philosophical sense of the word).

As far as analysis within enlightenment through meditation goes, many other faiths or beliefs encounter a similar experience without the Buddha’s teachings. They all explain it by using there own differing beliefs, and Gods, perhaps they can also be explained in purely psychological ways. This can apply IMHO to the “levels of mind” also.

I do believe in some “other reality” rather than a materialist outlook. Who knows you might be spot on with your beliefs, let’s face it, because something cannot be proved, it does not become untrue. If and when we find out we won’t be able to post our findings in the padded cell, that’s for sure. But I still contend that by its nature “idealism” cannot be refuted.
BTW when I previously mentioned other philosophical realists and said they could not be refuted, I meant as far as the ideas on reality, and not the whole of the philosophies.

Answer this by all means if you like, but I think this particular line of deliberation has run its course and we will have to agree to differ. I believe Buddha said somthing like... if your roof is burning do you contemplate the nature of fire or thow a bucket of water over it? so I am going of do somthing in my conventional reality.

John.

Jesus wasn't a Jew.

So what if it was pigs? Could have been anything. That's not the point of the tale...

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
Jesus wasn't a Jew.

Er, sorry, yes he was.