Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors
-
And again, longchen's theory has again being dispproved.Originally posted by An Eternal Now: -
so can you elaborate on that?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Non dualistic is neither two nor one. Although there isn't two, they are not the same either (one).
What does "not the same either" mean? How are they different? How are they the same?
How are scientific and spiritual insights "the same" and how are they "different?" -
so how is it being disproved?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:And again, longchen's theory has again being dispproved. -
I am saying that they cannot be said to be the same nor different.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:so can you elaborate on that?
What does "not the same either" mean? How are they different? How are they the same?
How are scientific and spiritual insights "the same" and how are they "different?"
The nature of reality is empty, there is no inherently existing 'spiritual insights' or inherently existing 'scientific insights'.
It does not mean that spiritual insights is related to scientific insights. -
Like AndrewPKYap said, so how is it disproved?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:And again, longchen's theory has again being dispproved.
-
Definitely I had comprehend and understand Lord Buddha's idea of rebirth. But being said that, it's my personal understanding and the acceptance of such a belief system.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Buddha asked you not to "believe" his words but "accept" them after much consideration and debate. This is the only way that you do not fall prey to "false beliefs".
How can you "comprehend and live" his words without thinking and questioning it?
Science may not necessarily prove things to be true. I believe there are discoveries or theory of science been disproved or having limitations in exploring. -
hmm...i think inorder to has a meaningful discussion we need to understand the objective clearly.Obviously the topic is totally irrelevant.Buddhism rejects the theory of a transmigrating permanent soul which what we called reincarnation
There is a lot of confusion surrounding the concepts of Reincarnation and Rebirth. At first glance it seems like they are synonyms, but there is a big difference between these two concepts. From wat i see january has misunderstood between the Buddhist doctrine of ‘rebirth’ and the Hindu doctrine of ‘transmigration’.
Anyone who study or practise buddhism know that the insight teaching of buddha DO NOT teaches Reincarnation but Rebirth
The reincarnation idea is to believe in a soul or a being, separate from the body. At the death of the physical body, this soul is said to move into another state and then enter a womb to be born again.
In Buddhism there is no soul, no self,no attachment,then what can be re-incarned?
-
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:
Indeed.. I did spend quite some effort explaining Rebirth, No-self and Dependent Origination to them. Do read: http://atheism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=258552&page=1
hmm...i think inorder to has a meaningful discussion we need to understand the objective clearly.Obviously the topic is totally irrelevant.Buddhism rejects the theory of a transmigrating permanent soul which what we called [b]reincarnation
There is a lot of confusion surrounding the concepts of Reincarnation and Rebirth. At first glance it seems like they are synonyms, but there is a big difference between these two concepts. From wat i see january has misunderstood between the Buddhist doctrine of ‘rebirth’ and the Hindu doctrine of ‘transmigration’.
Anyone who study or practise buddhism know that the insight teaching of buddha DO NOT teaches Reincarnation but Rebirth
The reincarnation idea is to believe in a soul or a being, separate from the body. At the death of the physical body, this soul is said to move into another state and then enter a womb to be born again.
In Buddhism there is no soul, no self,no attachment,then what can be re-incarned?
[/b]
More interesting replies from me to come...
but right now I'm busy. You can keep track of that thread 
And I do encourage all forummers to take part in discussing. -
hi,Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Indeed.. I did spend quite some effort explaining Rebirth, No-self and Dependent Origination to them. Do read: http://atheism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=258552&page=1
More interesting replies from me to come... but right now I'm busy. You can keep track of that thread And I do encourage all forummers to take part in discussing.
U have come out with some very good examples but still it may be profound for some to understand.U need to come with examples that pple can observe for themselve in their daily lives
sorry just to add something...not only tat but u need to explain it as simple as possible to get pple to see the points
-
Thanks for your feedback, I'll be more mindful of that in future postsOriginally posted by neutral_onliner:hi,
U have come out with some very good examples but still it may be profound for some to understand.U need to come with examples that pple can observe for themselve in their daily lives
sorry just to add something...not only tat but u need to explain it as simple as possible to get pple to see the points -
Islam and Christianity? " they cannot be said to be the same nor different."Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I am saying that they cannot be said to be the same nor different.
The nature of reality is empty, there is no inherently existing 'spiritual insights' or inherently existing 'scientific insights'.
It does not mean that spiritual insights is related to scientific insights.
Buddhism and Christianity? " they cannot be said to be the same nor different."
Man and woman? " they cannot be said to be the same nor different."
Of course you can say how they are the same or how they are different.
Unless you have no idea how they are the same or different.
"The nature of reality is empty" as in non existing? If it is non existing, only then can you say that "there is no inherently existing 'spiritual insights' or inherently existing 'scientific insights'."
If you say that it is existing but inherently empty, you will be able to tell the difference and speak the similarities.
If somebody ask you, "Are you rich or poor?"
A dualistic person will say, "I am rich" or "I am poor"
A non dualistic will say "I am a man, I am both rich and poor and I am neither rich nor poor".
If the person asks: "How are you both rich and poor and neither rich nor poor?"
If you say: "Rich and poor cannot be said to be the same nor different" people will simply think of you as a simpleton with no understanding, much less aware and mindful.
Now apply it to spiritual and physical. -
Simple, as science is based on reality hence science cannot disproved itself.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:so how is it being disproved? -
Yes, it is your belief system. It is not scientifically proven.Originally posted by yamizi:Definitely I had comprehend and understand Lord Buddha's idea of rebirth. But being said that, it's my personal understanding and the acceptance of such a belief system.
Does not mean that "beliefs" are better. The scientific method has allowed man to make a computer and enable us to communicate through the internet.Originally posted by yamizi:Science may not necessarily prove things to be true. I believe there are discoveries or theory of science been disproved or having limitations in exploring.
It is just stupid to hang on to beliefs when you have scientific proofs.
For example, you believe that the sun moves around the earth.
If science shows you proof that the earth moves a round the sun and you choose to believe that the sun moves around the earth because science is not perfect... well you are just delusional, and Buddhism is trying to tell you to avoid illusions and delusions and face reality. -
Let's take Newton's gravity theory and Einstein's gravity theory.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Simple, as science is based on reality hence science cannot disproved itself.
How did Einstein's gravity affirm Newton's gravity and how has it disproved Newton's gravity?
So what exactly are you saying? If you say that " science cannot disproved itself", are you saying that all the scientific theories at the moment are absolutely right and cannot be proven wrong or a better scientific theory can never be presented?
So please tell us why "science cannot disproved itself?" -
Andrew,Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Does not mean that "beliefs" are better. The scientific method has allowed man to make a computer and enable us to communicate through the internet.
It is just stupid to hang on to beliefs when you have scientific proofs.
For example, you believe that the sun moves around the earth.
If science shows you proof that the earth moves a round the sun and you choose to believe that the sun moves around the earth because science is not perfect... well you are just delusional, and Buddhism is trying to tell you to avoid illusions and delusions and face reality.
I think you're just another person on an ego trip. This is my last reply to you. Probably I didn't make myself clear. When I said personal belief, it doesn't mean I don't accept science. Probably it's due to the fact proven. However there are part of science that has its limitation. Like the center of the Earth. I was made to believe from our textbooks that the core is mantle and etc. Till now then I know that it's just a hypothesis, the Earth could be hollow at its center. Like is the neutron in an atom definitely the smallest particle ever exist? Even science claim that there are sub-atomic particles but they couldn't dwell in further. Has science ever been successful in exploring the most bottom of the ocean? Probably it couldn't due to the immerse water pressure.
My point is that while science is trying its best to prove aything or everything, it has its limitation. And scientists are humans too, they may not be perfect, and probably that may affect the results.
I've heard a tape recording of a small young boy reciting a lot of suttas. According to the Buddhist Professor who showed us this tape, this boy was living in a village and didn't really receive any buddhist teachings but he could recite simply by his 'memory'. And it's not 1 or 2 sutta but quite a big chunk from the Pali Canon. And some of the other academic made a research on his recitation, it seems the language structure-based is very much earlier than the modern Pali used. It could be most probably be that of used during Lord Buddha's time itself. The boy claimed to have remembered some of his past lives vividly. One of his past lives is a disciple to the Venerable Sariputra.
My point is that I believe AEN has posted ample scientific findings on rebirth and if really people like Andrew REALLY not satisfy with it, please go conduct your own research and disprove it.
Andrew, so what's your purpose in involving in this thread? To disprove rebirth?
My point is still that science is mankind using technology and mundane knowledge in trying to get to know the nature BUT it always has its limitations and probably not always right. BUT (again) base on this it doesn't mean I'm asking people not to believe in science.
My personal belief in the rebirth is also because I see it logical that life doesn't pop out of nowhere and dies off like that. I believe life is beyond this physical bodies of ours. It carries on from a body to another which is a life to another.
My personal belief finds rebirth more logical than a creator God whom suppose to pop out of nowhere itself and start create human for warped reasons only known to him, seeing the sufferings and people waging war in His name.
Andrew, end of the day, IF you ARE a buddhist (I'm not sure whether are you), then as buddhists we should focus more on solving our problems than again speculating on rebirth. But then again, only you know who you are and your purpose here yourself.
Probably I won't reply you further till you're off your ego trip.
Period. -
What I was saying just now, was that you cannot mix "Science" and "Spirituality" up just because of "non duality", because non-duality does not mean that different things are "the same" -- not two, not one.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Islam and Christianity? " they cannot be said to be the same nor different."
Buddhism and Christianity? " they cannot be said to be the same nor different."
Man and woman? " they cannot be said to be the same nor different."
Of course you can say how they are the same or how they are different.
Unless you have no idea how they are the same or different.
"The nature of reality is empty" as in non existing? If it is non existing, only then can you say that "there is no inherently existing 'spiritual insights' or inherently existing 'scientific insights'."
If you say that it is existing but inherently empty, you will be able to tell the difference and speak the similarities.
If somebody ask you, "Are you rich or poor?"
A dualistic person will say, "I am rich" or "I am poor"
A non dualistic will say "I am a man, I am both rich and poor and I am neither rich nor poor".
If the person asks: "How are you both rich and poor and neither rich nor poor?"
If you say: "Rich and poor cannot be said to be the same nor different" people will simply think of you as a simpleton with no understanding, much less aware and mindful.
Now apply it to spiritual and physical.
Of course relatively speaking, when we use relative concepts, you can say I am rich and you are poor. I can say that I am AEN, you are AndrewPKYap. But that's not ultimate.
So if you are talking about spiritual and physical in relative concept, relatively speaking they are different, and you cannot equate spiritual and physical with each other. Ultimately speaking it is just as it is. -
Unless you tell me reality isn't real.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Let's take Newton's gravity theory and Einstein's gravity theory.
How did Einstein's gravity affirm Newton's gravity and how has it disproved Newton's gravity?
So what exactly are you saying? If you say that " science cannot disproved itself", are you saying that all the scientific theories at the moment are absolutely right and cannot be proven wrong or a better scientific theory can never be presented?
So please tell us why "science cannot disproved itself?" -
It is like saying, "we are all equal when we are buried six feet underground." The ultimate.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:What I was saying just now, was that you cannot say that Science = Spirituality just because of "non duality", because non-duality does not mean that different things are "the same" -- not two, not one.
Of course relatively speaking, when we use relative concepts, you can say I am rich and you are poor. I can say that I am AEN, you are AndrewPKYap. But that's not ultimate.
So if you are talking about spiritual and physical in relative concept, relatively speaking they are different, and you cannot equate spiritual and physical with each other. Ultimately speaking it is just as it is.
True but we are not yet buried underground are we?
In the meantime, what do we do about it?
In the meantime this is our reality.
Reality therefore is not only when we are buried six feet underground but includes the now.
When you talk about spirituality and physicality, you are talking about "people" or a "person"
A person is both spiritual and physical... non dual... a person can be spiritual or physical, not one
Buddhism is "trans-logic"
If you are not logical, how can you ever hope to go beyond logic?
Trans-logic does not mean and does not imply "no logic" or "not logical"
It has to be fully logical and then some. If you can understand that, then you are a step closer...
Understand not as in "conceptually"... that is another story.... -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Simple, as science is based on reality hence science cannot disproved itself.
Just because science is based on reality, science cannot be wrong or reality is not real?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Unless you tell me reality isn't real. 
Just because we communicate in English our England is perfect?
-
Seems like the Atheism forum is damn active this month... maybe in future they end up in Top 20 forums Must give me credit for being the one who suggested January to set up his own forum
-
True.. I do agree that we can't do away with logic.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:It is like saying, "we are all equal when we are buried six feet underground." The ultimate.
True but we are not yet buried underground are we?
In the meantime, what do we do about it?
In the meantime this is our reality.
Reality therefore is not only when we are buried six feet underground but includes the now.
When you talk about spirituality and physicality, you are talking about "people" or a "person"
A person is both spiritual and physical... non dual... a person can be spiritual or physical, not one
Buddhism is "trans-logic"
If you are not logical, how can you ever hope to go beyond logic?
Trans-logic does not mean and does not imply "no logic" or "not logical"
It has to be fully logical and then some. If you can understand that, then you are a step closer...
Understand not as in "conceptually"... that is another story....
In terms of logic we should have logical clarity though it is a different thing as spiritual clarity. -
What this means is that, when people tell you something is "from the spiritual realm" or "use your spiritual eyes" you have to give it a very good examination using the best logic... if it cannot stand logic... there is probably something wrong with it...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:True.. I do agree that we can't do away with logic.
In terms of logic we should have logical clarity though it is a different thing as spiritual clarity.
If you are scared to examine it logically, you will be subject to people deluding you... they might or they might not do it on purpose... at best, you will be like the other religions that are dogmatic and ask their followers to believe without question...
You go to their forums... they are even scared to discuss their faith with you unless you are a fellow believer.... -
Yes, agreed... in fact most Buddhists do have this attitude.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:What this means is that, when people tell you something is "from the spiritual realm" or "use your spiritual eyes" you have to give it a very good examination using the best logic... if it cannot stand logic... there is probably something wrong with it...
If you are scared to examine it logically, you will be subject to people deluding you... they might or they might not do it on purpose... at best, you will be like the other religions that are dogmatic and ask their followers to believe without question...
You go to their forums... they are even scared to discuss their faith with you unless you are a fellow believer....
Buddhism is an open 'religion'. Yes, that article is highly flawed and portrays a very wrong perception of Buddhism. And although I do not agree with that article as well, I do not think that it is wrong to voice out your opinion, even if it's not popular or accepted by the public.
In fact, the Buddha encouraged us to voice out our opinions & questions. The truth will be able to withstand questioning. If it cannot, then it may not be the truth at all !!
In this case, when these controversial points are voiced out, we can explain it to that person, and perhaps many others who has the same doubts but do not dare to voice out. That is what a forum is for. If we cannot accept different opinions, and allow only topics that we like to hear, then this forum has lost its meaning !! ~ Jilimi, http://www.friendster.com/group-discussion/index.php?t=msg&th=574094&start=0& -
Power answer though it's based on roundabout logic.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Just because science is based on reality, science cannot be wrong or reality is not real?
Just because we communicate in English our England is perfect? -
And thus less moderation needed in BWB.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Seems like the Atheism forum is damn active this month... maybe in future they end up in Top 20 forums Must give me credit for being the one who suggested January to set up his own forum