|
Are you asking or are you trying to tell the thread something. Cause that's a very leading question. Just come straight out with it lol
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Are you asking or are you trying to tell the thread something. Cause that's a very leading question. Just come straight out with it lol I'm critically evaluating it -- it's just that my manner tends to be quite confrontational, which is why I put the disclaimer earlier about not attacking Buddhism. Consider it as scholarly enquiry; I'd be pretty happy if there were a good response, since then I could become a Buddhist instead of floating around in comparative religion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Why do you want to become a Buddhist? Or, why are you considering it? If you are looking for a good response to your inquiries (I am not talented/wise/etc. to answer your questions) I'm not sure you're ever going to be satisfied with the answers, especially since this may bring the subject of re-birth and spirituality up. Depending on your feelings on the afterlife as a whole, this will really not be satisfactory for you. Max fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Jul 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:I'm critically evaluating it -- it's just that my manner tends to be quite confrontational, which is why I put the disclaimer earlier about not attacking Buddhism. Consider it as scholarly enquiry; I'd be pretty happy if there were a good response, since then I could become a Buddhist instead of floating around in comparative religion. No i'm all for confrontation if it's for a purpose. What you're doing is a "i'm just asking questions man" thing but there's something you want to say first and you haven't said it yet. Cause i would say buddhists have plenty of passion...for buddhist teachings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Anyway none of this poo poo matters i just felt like playing within the confines of the game for a second. Splitting hairs and arguing about terms and this term over that term and it's all crap. Take it away boys
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:I'm bringing up a specific and ancient philosophical problem here, which is the question of eudaimonia versus hedonia in ethics. While Buddhism seems to be very good at promoting hedonia, which is to say momentary happiness and pleasure, it falls flat on its face when confronted with issues of eudaimonia. If you've ever read Brave New World it's also what Huxley is getting at: the society of Brave New World is perfect in terms of promoting happiness, but terrible at promoting things like art and personal development. It's also what motivates Nietzsche's comparison of Buddhism with Epicureanism, which claimed that the way to perfect happiness was not to indulge ourselves but to live an ascetic life reflecting on the cause of suffering. Purple Prince posted:This motivates my final question: in light of the fact that Buddhism seems to reject the possibility of long-term goals, of personal development, of meaningful relationships, should we accept it in order to avoid suffering? That is, Is the loss of suffering worth the loss of passion? I don't know where you have the word 'passion' from, but in Buddhism words like craving, clinging, etc. have specific meanings that refer to specific mental phenomena. Like I wrote earlier, according to the four noble truths, the origin of suffering is - specifically - "craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming." This isn't the same as generally having passion. It does not refer to the same thing as it does in the western tradition. If the Buddha and Freud talked about passion, they would be talking about two different things, because the meaning comes from the context in which they are uttered. Edit: The words of Buddhism are English translation of ancient Indian philosophy terms. They have to be understood in the context of the Indian philosophical traditions, and not the western. The cessation of suffering is - specifically - letting go of those three types of craving. Does it follow that if you let go of these three types of craving, you cannot have meaningful relationships or long-term goals? It's actually pretty hard to understand what is meant here by craving for sensual pleasures, unless you know how Buddhism understands pleasure. It's pretty difficult to understand what 'craving for becoming' means, unless you understand how Buddhism understands what 'you' (i.e. any person) is/is made up of. It seems to me that maybe your ideas about what Buddhism is aren't fully formed yet. Maybe more understanding is necessary before a critical inquiry can commence. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jul 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
I think the idea in Buddhism is that you learn how not to attach yourself to constant longing in the destructive sense. So you could, for instance, passionately want political reform and work for it, to the point of getting shot at by cops. But (in theory) when you have a setback you are not emotionally crippled by it. You're able to put the cause down for a weekend to go hang out with your family. I don't think you'd necessarily lose any effectiveness at pursuing goals here - you might in fact be able to gain it, though in some cases you also might change your goals. (For instance, "getting rich" might seem less important, which would be considered a negative in some spheres, but is not necessarily "bad.") To give an example, it seems like Buddhist philosophy and practice would (for instance) tend to reduce one's inclination to get into super-hot flame wars about Bernie Sanders or whoever. This means there are slightly fewer flame wars eating up time and energy - mostly your own, but incrementally that of the world at large. That doesn't mean you wouldn't be feeling the Bern and working your rear end off to support Sanders. Indeed, it might improve your ability to do so. Nessus fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jul 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think the idea in Buddhism is that you learn how not to attach yourself to constant longing in the destructive sense. So you could, for instance, passionately want political reform and work for it, to the point of getting shot at by cops. But (in theory) when you have a setback you are not emotionally crippled by it. You're able to put the cause down for a weekend to go hang out with your family. I don't think you'd necessarily lose any effectiveness at pursuing goals here - you might in fact be able to gain it, though in some cases you also might change your goals. (For instance, "getting rich" might seem less important, which would be considered a negative in some spheres, but is not necessarily "bad.") What you're actually supposed to do as a person is to develop your virtue, your generosity and your meditation. That is the actual practice, the things at which you apply your mind, speech and body. So if working for political reform is your idea of being virtuous, if you think that "by doing this work I'll benefit of a lot of people" then great, you're actually practicing in accordance with the Dhamma. Me, I don't like politics so much, so I don't work for reform, but I still try to be virtuous and generous. I keep precepts and I do volunteer work when I feel I have the energy for it. You can still do stuff as a Buddhist, but you should try to have right intention when you do it. Right intention is letting go, being kind and being compassionate. If you think of a venn diagram, try to have the intention that is in the intersection of all those three things. If you work for reform because you want people to have it better, great. But letting go can mean that you know that even if your reform succeeds, it's not going to be a perfect world. The reform might not even be successful at all. You know that sometimes you lose and sometimes you win, so you're not so invested in it. Edit: Like, sometimes when I'm being generous, I know that the recipient isn't going to feel grateful or thank me, but that's okay because from the outset, I do my best not to be invested in the outcome. Because letting go can mean not letting things be about what "I want". Edit2: But letting go doesn't mean that you let go of the handles when you're riding a motorcycle. It doesn't mean that you let go of your precepts when don't want to keep them. My point being that the words of Buddhism have specific meanings within Buddhism that don't always come out so well from just the English words without context. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jul 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
I seem to have made a terrible mistake about Buddhism's view of attachment, but at least I'm not alone in doing so. This article clarified it a great deal for me. You'd think having a degree in philosophy would teach me not to make assumptions about the definitions of words, but I've always been hasty to make judgements (it even ruins my chess play). At least now I have a starting point for re-evaluating my view of Buddhism: it also makes more sense to me how Taoist and Buddhist schools merged into Zen. Thanks much for your time, and sorry if I annoyed anyone too much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
I think that is a common misconception so it is very understandable. There is a frequent issue that comes up, particularly among new people in buddhist forums or groups, like "if you are supposed to abandon craving and attachment, doesn't that mean you are attached to non-attachment?" and so on. The idea hinges on concepts in the teachings involving striving towards the wholesome, understanding impermanence, and recognizing the inherent unsatisfactory nature of conditioned things. I don't know much about Nietzsche but from what I have seen in this thread, it seems to stem from common misunderstandings of what the Buddha taught, which is very common. The nihilism label comes up frequently since a lot of people have a hard time reconciling non-attachment and the desire to cultivate wholesome states.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:So if you don't believe in reincarnation, is there any point to Buddhism? You could have gone to the point and asked "Is there any point to life at all?" *Goes into Japanese Noh movement* Buddhism is just a path. Like all great paths, like a nuclear blast, the potency immediately begins to be corrupted by the stuff of samsara, by the minds of those considering it
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:
Can't argue with that. This was happening before the buddha even passed away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:You could have gone to the point and asked "Is there any point to life at all?" Yeah, there is. The good of the greater whole, the struggle of the oppressed and the ascent of man. The individual is irrelevant and transient, but what he does for others is not. That's the problem I have with Buddhism, it's so very focused on the suffering of the individual. There are no lessons or advice on how to change the world or change the relations of power or anything of the sort. The only thing that seems to matter is the easing of suffering, so anything you think does that is good. You can be a fascist, a communist, a venture capitalist or just a nobody with no ideas or ambitions, because it's all illusion and doesn't matter so long as you are at peace. Or at least that's how I've understood Buddhism. You will probably disagree, yes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Yeah, there is. The good of the greater whole, the struggle of the oppressed and the ascent of man. The individual is irrelevant and transient, but what he does for others is not. It's an intentionally limited "code of living" so to speak, it's not an all-encompassing ideology. That's asking too much of it. Asking for a gadget that can do every job and fix every problem is where a lot of the problems in the world find their form (note I didn't say begin, to make my point clear). It should be respected for what it is (and criticized within its own parameters as well). About the rest of your post, everything has its place, addressing issues is entirely conditional and situational, that's one of the unsaid lessons within Buddhism anyway, using discretion. Why this looking for one-size-fits-all answers all the time? Trying to be a God? What is that. I see it everywhere. I admit I even tried to put ideas together in that direction at one point. It's rubbing salt in wounds and that's it. Discretion, nuance, and "situational awareness" are what really matter when looking out at the world. As they say, when all you've got is a hammer.......
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Yeah, there is. The good of the greater whole, the struggle of the oppressed and the ascent of man. The individual is irrelevant and transient, but what he does for others is not. In Buddhism, what you're actually supposed to be doing is the noble eightfold path. Let's look at 'right action' for example: quote:"And how is one made pure in three ways by bodily action? There is the case where a certain person, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains from taking what is not given. He does not take, in the manner of a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and have not been given by them. Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is made pure in three ways by bodily action." source Can you imagine what kind of world we would live in if people practiced right action? In Buddhism, peace that comes from the noble eightfold path is right peace (and you can't follow the noble eightfold path without practicing right action). Peace that does not come from the noble eightfold path, is wrong peace. So you can't kill people for money to buy heroin, because heroin makes you peaceful and that's all that matters. That'd be wrong peace. If you feel peaceful from kicking puppies, that's still the wrong type of peace, because it doesn't come from following the noble eightfold path. (Specifically, by kicking puppies you're breaking your precept not to harm living beings) And actually, the Buddha did have things to say about how a society should be organized to be in accordance with the Dhamma. I can (probably) find links to some of these suttas if you're interested. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:If you feel peaceful from kicking puppies, that's still the wrong type of peace, because it doesn't come from following the noble eightfold path. (Specifically, by kicking puppies you're breaking your precept not to harm living beings) Yeah, but it if kicking puppies is emotionally neutral to you, neither giving you pain nor enjoyment, is it still in some abstract sense bad? Or good, for that matter. As long as there is no attachment involved, what is forbidden? As for harming living things, how do you harm a living thing without wishing to harm? Fingers loosen, a bow straightens, an arrow flies and a man simply steps in front of it. You wished him no harm, but in the great cosmic dance he simply happened to step in the path of an arrow. Rhymenoceros posted:And actually, the Buddha did have things to say about how a society should be organized to be in accordance with the Dhamma. I can (probably) find links to some of these suttas if you're interested. Oh word? Do that. Tautologicus posted:It's an intentionally limited "code of living" so to speak, it's not an all-encompassing ideology. That's asking too much of it. Asking for a gadget that can do every job and fix every problem is where a lot of the problems in the world find their form (note I didn't say begin, to make my point clear). It should be respected for what it is (and criticized within its own parameters as well). I don't see a whole lot here that disagrees with anything I said. My point was that by dwelling so deeply on the role of the individual, Buddhism becomes incapable of offering tools to affect real and powerful change in society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:I don't see a whole lot here that disagrees with anything I said. My point was that by dwelling so deeply on the role of the individual, Buddhism becomes incapable of offering tools to affect real and powerful change in society. The article I linked earlier (here, if you missed it) pretty much answers this by saying that the individual and society aren't separate: presumably with the correct understanding of no-self, alleviating the suffering of oneself and of society are the same task. e: Realised that this also answers your 'kicking puppies' question. If you feel neutral about kicking puppies it's because you have separated yourself from the awareness of their suffering; thus you're failing to adhere to Anatta. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Yeah, but it if kicking puppies is emotionally neutral to you, neither giving you pain nor enjoyment, is it still in some abstract sense bad? Or good, for that matter. As long as there is no attachment involved, what is forbidden? As for harming living things, how do you harm a living thing without wishing to harm? Fingers loosen, a bow straightens, an arrow flies and a man simply steps in front of it. You wished him no harm, but in the great cosmic dance he simply happened to step in the path of an arrow. Attachment in Buddhism, probably doesn't mean what you think it means. Non-attachment certainly does not imply that you can behave unethically, it implies the opposite (because it means and refers to something else than just the face value of the English words). Friendly Tumour posted:Oh word? Do that. See the 'duties of a wheel turning monarch'. A "wheel turning monarch" is an ideal leader of state in Buddhism. See section 5, paragraph 2. How to deal with crime in society. See paragraph 14. The Monk with Dysentery. Not strictly about society, but interesting nonetheless. Here the entire community of monastics incur an offense of wrongdoing for failing to care for a sick monk. (No one was taking care of the sick monk because he "didn't do anything for the other monks"). Friendly Tumour posted:I don't see a whole lot here that disagrees with anything I said. My point was that by dwelling so deeply on the role of the individual, Buddhism becomes incapable of offering tools to affect real and powerful change in society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:
Good
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Yeah, there is. The good of the greater whole, the struggle of the oppressed and the ascent of man. The individual is irrelevant and transient, but what he does for others is not. The body of Buddhist scripture (which is a hell of a lot broader than just sutras) includes so much stuff about people endeavoring to change the world and societies around them. If you go read about historic Buddhist masters/saints, basically every single one of them managed multiple major community (or state) oriented public works. A lot of the wandering and travelling you hear about in Buddhism was specifically to coordinate major projects that required cooperation between multiple communities/rulers. This is particularly true in Mahayana (and Tibetan Buddhism) where the entire ideal of the Bodhisattva is to work to improve the world. Truthfully, it isn't absent in Theravada either, just it is there with a more implicit emphasis. Indeed the emphasis to soften the way kingdoms are ruled exists even in the original Buddhist discourses (where the Buddha talks with a handful of rulers). Hell, to this day, every branch of Buddhism has their own pet social projects. The desire to be of some assistance to the world is really fundamental to Buddhism. It is the center, beginning, middle, and end of Buddhism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:
No, it isn't, he was right. You work on getting your own poo poo straight first, and the act of service flows naturally from that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:No, it isn't, he was right. You work on getting your own poo poo straight first, and the act of service flows naturally from that. That's why they're inseparable and both the beginning, middle and end, is it not? I mean, Buddhist thinking generally breaks down the distinction between the self and the rest of the world. Taking care of oneself isn't really any different from taking care of the world from that perspective. Besides, the eightfold path can't be separated from being an upright individual who contributes in some meaningful way to society. Granted the scope and scale would hopefully progress with time as someone becomes more aware of what they can really offer to the world and where their efforts would make the greatest impact. Anyways, I'm probably being pedantic, since I agree with what you said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:That's why they're inseparable and both the beginning, middle and end, is it not? I mean, Buddhist thinking generally breaks down the distinction between the self and the rest of the world. Taking care of oneself isn't really any different from taking care of the world from that perspective. Besides, the eightfold path can't be separated from being an upright individual who contributes in some meaningful way to society. Granted the scope and scale would hopefully progress with time as someone becomes more aware of what they can really offer to the world and where their efforts would make the greatest impact. Ok. Nbd, except that guy is maybe looking to this thread to change his mind with a brilliant argument ( which is in itself wrong thinking) because he ought to do his own homework.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Ok. Nbd, except that guy is maybe looking to this thread to change his mind with a brilliant argument ( which is in itself wrong thinking) because he ought to do his own homework. Purple Prince posted:I seem to have made a terrible mistake about Buddhism's view of attachment, but at least I'm not alone in doing so. Sounds like he did. Not sure what you're complaining about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:Sounds like he did. Not sure what you're complaining about. The dude linked an about.com article.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:The dude linked an about.com article. I saved it to read later as I am trying to learn about all this, should I not?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
goodness posted:I saved it to read later as I am trying to learn about all this, should I not? No its fine i think..just not an indication of heavy preparation before posting arguments against Buddhism. There are more comprehensive sites out there (Berzin archives is good for a few things for example). People called me a bad buddhist here and all the rest but i went to a buddhist college + went on a ton of retreats before i even said a thing in this thread. But that was then and this is now. Anyway his points are important and shouldnt be dismissed, but they come from a kind of misunderstanding and culture clash i think, not some problem that buddhists try to sweep under the rug. Buddhism is very subtle and also translations have I think led to a lot of misunderstandings (the translations of suffering and enlightenment for starters, not that I know the original meanings inside and out). It can't be attacked based on some common encapsulations, you've got to see some of the nuances first. Could say the same thing about Christianity I guess but Im not going to go there. And besides, Buddhism has completely ordered society in SE Asia, it certainly does have societal impact. But it was intended to be an individual effort first and foremost. It does not say much about people's relationship ties with one another, more about how one should treat people in a moment, if that makes sense. Contrast with confucianism which has lots to say about people's relations. Just my thoughts. And besides, when a set of ideas goes above and beyond to reorder the world, we get something like the death and destruction that happened through the attempts towards communism. Capitalism is not exactly the same thing because the main writers were (imo) mostly articulating what people were already doing and why it was great, not what ought to be done (Ricardo, Smith, etc). When you get into what ought to be done, that's a whole other world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Actually the article is a little bit new agey and "hopeful". Nobody wants to hear the bad news I guess..you're not gonna make it. Keep the hope alive for as long as you can, but that'd be the struggle keeping on. And sometimes it does mean you have to leave everything behind. Not out of choice, it's out of your hands. It's certainly been out of mine..i've been trying to hold on for as long as i can. I don't really know how it began to slip away. You think you've got a choice, and that's the root of the misfortune. Choosing to be happy over suffering is choosing one pile of poo poo over the other one. So maybe i don't like that article at all. But it's fine because i don't expect a so-called "buddhist expert" on about.com to do any better than what she did there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
If i've struck the wrong tone with that i apologize, it's been slow burn crisis mode for 5 years now. You don't know what's coming, you can't prepare. You'll be utterly blindsided. Any attempt to take control after that point is utter foolishness and it will come from the complete other direction instead. Just drop your guard, it's all you can do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Finally; to be a Buddhist doesn't mean you know what's going on. It means you want to know. Something in this ballpark.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
and for my final post, i'll make a good point disappear
the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Jul 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Actually the article is a little bit new agey and "hopeful". Nobody wants to hear the bad news I guess..you're not gonna make it. Keep the hope alive for as long as you can, but that'd be the struggle keeping on. Well that's a pile of happy horseshit and wrong thinking, but I reckon it's your own pov (versus an article I chose not to read), so there's that. When you write something brutal like "you're not gonna make it", I think you should qualify the you, don't you? Tautologicus posted:Finally; to be a Buddhist doesn't mean you know what's going on. It means you want to know. Something in this ballpark. that's appropriate- any 'ist' or 'ian' or 'im' is a follower of a path, not necessarily a path-knower, which implies being the path Tautologicus posted:and for my final post, i'll make a good point disappear haha, right, like you've done....
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Well that's a pile of happy horseshit and wrong thinking, but I reckon it's your own pov (versus an article I chose not to read), so there's that. When you write something brutal like "you're not gonna make it", I think you should qualify the you, don't you? Well the Heart Sutra is pretty brutal too. Unless ones chooses to read it in the most trouble-free way possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:If i've struck the wrong tone with that i apologize, it's been slow burn crisis mode for 5 years now. You don't know what's coming, you can't prepare. You'll be utterly blindsided. Any attempt to take control after that point is utter foolishness and it will come from the complete other direction instead. Just drop your guard, it's all you can do. This- this is a very good post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Well the Heart Sutra is pretty brutal too. Unless ones chooses to read it in the most trouble-free way possible. I don't remember it, haha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
I've been reading a paperback version of this pdf http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/whatbelieve.pdf and am really really enjoying it, though it seems to be a little harsh to Mahayana beliefs occaisonally. Is there a kind of introduction like that for the schools of Mahayana?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Is there anything in Buddhism that directly opposes modern science? Obviously reincarnation is not supported but believing in that and adhering to factual knowledge are not mutually exclusive. And is there any history of natural psychedelics in exploring the mind in Buddhism? I was just reading about not being intoxicated but from experience it is more opening of the mind to the reality of the world than hiding it. goodness fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Jul 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
goodness posted:Is there anything in Buddhism that directly opposes modern science? Obviously reincarnation is not supported but believing in that and adhering to factual knowledge are not mutually exclusive. Modern science is all based on observable physical sense-based data (objective). Buddhism and self-realization are somewhat asymmetrical to that (subjective). Although there is research now connecting effects of meditation to physical results such as MRI scans, etc. that can show scientists in their mode, something of what is going on. There are anecdotal studies of reincarnation, but obviously nothing that can be proved through the tools available to science. There are also some Western traditions that sort of subscribe to it... Psychedelics= pretty much no. Read about the 60's and there are statements of some Indian gurus who state that the West is/was so materialistic that it takes a psychedelic experience to break some people out of their rut.....in a cathartic sense, perhaps similar to a family member dying or a near death experience. It's not something you want to make a habit of, but I reckon it useful in showing the individual (subjectively) that there is more than this world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:Modern science is all based on observable physical sense-based data (objective). Buddhism and self-realization are somewhat asymmetrical to that (subjective). Although there is research now connecting effects of meditation to physical results such as MRI scans, etc. that can show scientists in their mode, something of what is going on. I agree that there is no science that supports reincarnation or can show the actual mental progress or enlightenment one reaches (maybe one day though when we can actually interpret brain waves). But I cannot see anything that excludes one or the other from existing together. For instance, if the Bible is taken literally as many Christians do then the Earth is only in the thousands of years old. This is mutually exclusive from science. Getting out of the Western society way of thinking is the exact experience that I have had with them. The first time it felt like the weight and constraint of society was erased from my body and I could start fresh with a new look on the world and how it is all connected. And that eventually led me to look into all this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
goodness posted:Is there anything in Buddhism that directly opposes modern science? Obviously reincarnation is not supported but believing in that and adhering to factual knowledge are not mutually exclusive. The data collected so far is actually really impressive, and very hard to explain without some form of reincarnation. To be a bit more specific, reincarnation is not supported by the assumption that consciousness is created by the brain. There's no conflict between reincarnation and modern science if you don't insist on that assumption being true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 22:04
|
|