One can't prove that God but science makes God unnecessary
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
1) Yes, sentient beings cannot have birth without a previous instance of consciousness.
Therefore there are three conditions for birth: father, mother, consciousness in Buddhism. Consciousness is not an entity, but a stream or arising and re-arising, a mindstream... each of us have or rather is a distinct mindstream, but that is just speaking conventionally.
But we do not see 'design' involved.
2) You don't get it... because you still think there must be an experiencer apart from experience. My point is, experience is always occurring without experiencer. Thinking happens without thinker. Hearing is occurring without hearer. Even right now, there is only reading without a reader. Seeing without a seer. There is only ever experience without an experiencer. Later on I can recall seeing a flower and I can even say "I saw a flower" but knowing fully well that is merely conventional parlance for communication, there is actually no seer apart from the sight 'flower', no actual self persisting from one moment to another.
The notion of a self being distinct from experience can be seen through with some investigation just like the notion of a car-ness distinct from its parts, e.g. engine, window, wheels etc can be seen through.
The direct experience of this is gapless, direct, and self-releasing - i.e. no distance between a seer and a seen, no vantage point, boundless freedom, intense aliveness and intimacy and clarity in every single experience because there is no 'I' at a center to be separate from any experience, nor any sense of a boundary or circumference, mere experience appearing that is self-knowing, self-felt and releasing moment to moment.1. Again whose consciousness are we talking about? Whose mindstreams? And you mean you do not see design in living things? That the eyes are designed for sight? The heart designed to pump blood etc etc? How much intelligent design is needed to even give a person an artificial limb that can barely do what a normal arm can do? To deny design in the face of the evidence is IMO a irrational thing.
2. It's not that I don't get it, I just find it illogical. You have yet to demonstrate how one can experience something without an experiencer. It is logically absurd to say that there is no writer writing what is being written for the purpose of letting a non-existent reader do some reading. I think it is contingent things taken to absurdity, a reductio ad absurdum situation. Of course you can take all these as mere mental exercises to be performed, like a thought experiment to see the car-ness apart from the parts, or where is the "I" when you take a human apart. But that's all there is to it, thought experiments. In a sense, almost anything can "happen" when it is mere thought experiments. But then it comes to reality. If I walk into a door, it hurts. Not just conventionally saying it hurts as a parlance of communication but literally! And if anyone think it does not then perhaps he should try walking into a door. Of course one can do more thought experiment and say the door does not have inherent existence. But then when the thought is banished the door is really there, and the blood is flowing.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
What you have is squares in circle, still there is distinct square and circle. It still proved my point that it is impossible to have a squared circle. Even your imagination is limited by what is a square and a circle. You cannot conceive of a squared circle. It is a logical impossibility. Just like you cannot be a married bachelor.
The image of God is "imprinted" in every human being. Which is why it is wrong to take another's person life without authority and right.
that's what i said, cannot. imagination is another thing.indeed logic is in Buddhism too. we said when we plant an apple seed, you only can get an apple tree, no other type of fruit tree. reap what u planted. another example is no matter how you cook sand, u cannot get cooked rice. i think possibility has it's limit. squared circle is one kind of geometry logic. married bachelor is word logic(?). things like shrinking the entire universe into a mustard seed as an example was written in our text, even when we think it's not possible.
/\
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Again whose consciousness are we talking about? Whose mindstreams? And you mean you do not see design in living things? That the eyes are designed for sight? The heart designed to pump blood etc etc? How much intelligent design is needed to even give a person an artificial limb that can barely do what a normal arm can do? To deny design in the face of the evidence is IMO a irrational thing.
2. It's not that I don't get it, I just find it illogical. You have yet to demonstrate how one can experience something without an experiencer. It is logically absurd to say that there is no writer writing what is being written for the purpose of letting a non-existent reader do some reading. I think it is contingent things taken to absurdity, a reductio ad absurdum situation. Of course you can take all these as mere mental exercises to be performed, like a thought experiment to see the car-ness apart from the parts, or where is the "I" when you take a human apart. But that's all there is to it, thought experiments. In a sense, almost anything can "happen" when it is mere thought experiments. But then it comes to reality. If I walk into a door, it hurts. Not just conventionally saying it hurts as a parlance of communication but literally! And if anyone think it does not then perhaps he should try walking into a door. Of course one can do more thought experiment and say the door does not have inherent existence. But then when the thought is banished the door is really there, and the blood is flowing.
1. There is no 'whose' mindstream, just many unique mindstreams. Mindstreams are empty of self.
There is no designer. There is just a conglomerate of body parts that form a function. Evidence shows evolution, not design.
2. What does getting hurt have anything to do with a self? There is pain, no feeler.
http://nonduality.com/goode6.htmThe Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Phenomena:
1. The car is not inherently the same as its parts.
2. The car is not inherently different from its parts.
3. The car is not inherently dependent upon its parts.
4. The car is not inherently the substratum upon which its parts depend.
5. The car is not inherently the possessor of its parts.
6. The car is not inherently the mere collection of its parts.
7. The car is not inherently the shape of its parts.
The Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Persons:
The reasonings on the selflessness of persons try to find the true person. They search by trying to isolate the inherent existence of the person in relation to the parts the body/mind. For purposes of one's meditation, the parts of the body/mind include everything related to what one thinks of as one's self. It can be any physical, mental, moral or psychological phenomenon whatsoever. We might think of ourselves as a body, a mind, set of memories, or a collection of character values, or something that essentially includes all of these. The reasonings go like this. With a firm sense of this inherent existence in mind, we try to isolate it – is the inherent existence of the self exactly the same as the parts of the body/mind? Is it different from the parts? These first two steps of the Sevenfold Reasoning logically cover all the bases. The self is either inherently the same as, or different from, the parts. The other steps of the reasonings are valuable to go into because they keep the meditation from being purely an intellectual exercise. We might, for example, truly feel that the self owns the body/mind. This is the conception to get at, even though it is logically entailed by the self being different from the body/mind. Once all the reasonings are gone through in depth and the inherent existence of the self is not found anywhere, this can upset one's conception of the way things are. At first it is disorienting and perhaps scary. Later, it can be the source of great joy.
1. The self is not inherently the same as the parts of the body/mind.
2. The self is not different from the parts of the body/mind.
3. The self is not dependent upon the parts of the body/mind.
4. The self is not inherently the substratum upon which the parts of the body/mind depend.
5. The self is not inherently the possessor of the parts of the body/mind.
6. The self is not inherently the mere collection of the parts of the body/mind.
7. The self is not inherently the shape of the parts of the body/mind.
(continued in the link)
-
Realizing no-self is beyond just doing thought experiments. But since people are unable to directly realize it at first, it seems such exercises would be necessary at least to have some confidence in the teaching, then the next step would be to really investigate it on an experiential level through vipassana/vipasyana meditation, insight meditation.
The inferential analysis part is not necessary for me because I have realized it already in direct experience that this is so, through experiential investigation. Knowledge of anatman is doubtless and unshakeable here. -
From someone deeply realized:
"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd
Re: Zenbob/interbeing
Dan: Interbeing (as I've typically heard Thich Naht Hahn translated
into English) means that no thing exists on its own. This is a
restatement of the Buddhist teaching of dependent origination,
sometimes termed "interdependent origination". Therefore,
no thing exists as a separate thing. At the same time, the
appearance
of different qualities can arise with no difficulty, although
these appareances and qualities are actually in constant flux
if observed closely. So what is it that is existing in
"interbeing"? Not a thing can be said to be existing,
as anything that is named is dependent on other things existing,
into infinity. So who is the "you" who has "your pain" and the
"me"
who has "my pain"? These entities, according to
"interbeing", aren't there in any sense as a discreet entity. The
sensation of pain arises, but no one "has" it.
Empathy is a
resonation of vibration, not a feeling-state of one separate
entity toward another. There is pain "over there" and pleasure
"over here" - but whose pain and pleasure is it? The apprehension
of interbeing leads to an unimaginable and unspeakable Infinity
that
is capable of indefinite flux and eternal stillness
simultaneously.
In the midst of this Infinity, you and I converse, words emanating
from "here" are heard "there" and vice versa. The Void is alive
and resonating. It is indeed a marvelous unbounded symphony
in which every note has its place in the song, and the song
arises as a simultaneous unsplit melody, every "this" resonating
with every "that".
-- Love -- Dan
.....................
Dan: Indeed.
The external reality is constructed
by the internal observer, and
the internal observer couldn't
self-perceive or construct "its"
perception except in contrast/relation
to external reality. As each
is needed to assume the other,
any inherent reality to them
dissolves when the "middle
way" is attended to. Thought-memory
and emotional-sensory processes
construed as reactions to external beings
and forces or internal states and needs are
dependent on the inner-outer
scheme of reality, so they have
no place to stand.
*Truly* there is no
external or internal,
yet there is the appearance of
external and internal through
mutual arising and co-construction.
Hence, language, culture, families,
lives being lived, deaths being
died, places to go,
things to do.
The intriguing question here is:
"how can this appearance of co-constructed
'interbeing' appear?"
There is no "where" for it to appear, and
any "how" is simply a construction
arising within and from the appearance
itself.
So, the answer is: poof! like this!
Yet it's this very "poof" in which "they"
seem to appear, in which "they" aren't!
So, as you say, "pop" and "drop" -
(that has a much better ring to it
than, say, "poop" and "droop" ;-)
Splash,
a frog jumps in the old pond.
(haiku)
Plop, plop
fizz, fizz
oh, what a relief
it izz.
(old alkaseltzer commercial).
Love,
Dan -
Originally posted by sinweiy:
that's what i said, cannot. imagination is another thing.indeed logic is in Buddhism too. we said when we plant an apple seed, you only can get an apple tree, no other type of fruit tree. reap what u planted. another example is no matter how you cook sand, u cannot get cooked rice. i think possibility has it's limit. squared circle is one kind of geometry logic. married bachelor is word logic(?). things like shrinking the entire universe into a mustard seed as an example was written in our text, even when we think it's not possible.
/\
I do not think you would succeed in imagining a squared circle either. Anyway, as the Bible says, God created living things to reproduce after their kinds. This is why you do not get an orange fron an apple tree. This is also why evolution is false. All this is by God's divine design. Nothing is left to undirected natural causes. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I do not think you would succeed in imagining a squared circle either. Anyway, as the Bible says, God created living things to reproduce after their kinds. This is why you do not get an orange fron an apple tree. This is also why evolution is false. All this is by God's divine design. Nothing is left to undirected natural causes.
"evolution" from Lucy to modern man to us is okay. Bacteria to 'evolve'/mutate up the life chain is far fetch. "evolution" that is related to reincarnation is of another sort. to Buddhism and hinduism, there is reincarnation from one body to the next body, be it human or animal etc. like how one consciousness reborn into lower or higher lifeform. but for now reincarnation can only be proven by deep meditation and or a bit with hypnosis(?). it was not a Buddha's founded concept but a norm then for yogis./\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
except to Buddhism and hinduism, there is reincarnation from one body to the next body, be it human or animal etc. but for now reincarnation can only be proven by deep meditation and or a bit with hypnosis(?). it was not a Buddha's founded concept but a norm then for yogis./\
@Sinweiy & @BroInChrist
Well, it looks like Christianity is incompatible with current scientific thinking. Buddhism talks nothing about evolution as far as I know but it does accept that there are other worlds with other beings and that we have been reincarnating for a long, long time, even before this planet was even formed yet.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
"evolution" from Lucy to modern man to us is okay. Bacteria to 'evolve'/mutate up the life chain is far fetch. "evolution" that is related to reincarnation is of another sort. to Buddhism and hinduism, there is reincarnation from one body to the next body, be it human or animal etc. like how one consciousness reborn into lower or higher lifeform. but for now reincarnation can only be proven by deep meditation and or a bit with hypnosis(?). it was not a Buddha's founded concept but a norm then for yogis./\
1. Problem is, there is no evidence to show that Lucy was a transitional missing link between ape and man. See http://creation.com/lucy-isnt-the-missing-link
2. You would be surprised that bacteria evolving to man is what is being taught as fact to school children! Darwin said that life may have begun in a warm little pond. That's a nice way of calling pondscum.
3. Urrm....correct me if I am wrong but I think Buddha did not teach reincarnation.
-
Originally posted by Steveyboy:
@Sinweiy & @BroInChrist
Well, it looks like Christianity is incompatible with current scientific thinking. Buddhism talks nothing about evolution as far as I know but it does accept that there are other worlds with other beings and that we have been reincarnating for a long, long time, even before this planet was even formed yet.
Christianity is not incompatible with current scientific thinking, it is only incompatible with popularly accepted "scientific" thinking on the subject of origins. The Bible's focus is on earth. I believe life exists only on earth, and thus far the evidence is fully consistent with the Bible.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Problem is, there is no evidence to show that Lucy was a transitional missing link between ape and man. See http://creation.com/lucy-isnt-the-missing-link
2. You would be surprised that bacteria evolving to man is what is being taught as fact to school children! Darwin said that life may have begun in a warm little pond. That's a nice way of calling pondscum.
3. Urrm....correct me if I am wrong but I think Buddha did not teach reincarnation.
Even the link is not proven between ape and man, it doesn't mean that it is not a baseless theory. The theory of evolution has many implications and is the basis for many other branch sciences like Genetics and so forth. So, you cannot dispel the entire theory of evolution just because there is no direct link between ape and man.
The Buddha taught reincarnation via his teachings on karma. Anyway, there is already a pervalent belief system on reincarnation in ancient indian society. However, he redefine reasons for getting out of the vicious cycle of death and rebirth. The Hindus believe it is so that they get to become one with their God(s). Buddha was a revolutionary teacher who taught in minute detail, the reasons of what compells us to take uncontrollable rebirths and why and how to get out of this cyclic existence. He taught on many levels to suit the audience of different listeners. These became the major schools of Buddhism that exists today.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Problem is, there is no evidence to show that Lucy was a transitional missing link between ape and man. See http://creation.com/lucy-isnt-the-missing-link
2. You would be surprised that bacteria evolving to man is what is being taught as fact to school children! Darwin said that life may have begun in a warm little pond. That's a nice way of calling pondscum.
3. Urrm....correct me if I am wrong but I think Buddha did not teach reincarnation.
?brother, are u confused? did i sound like i agreed that human came from ape?. the missing link i already know and mentioned to u. or are u supporting me or thought i disagreed. funny.reincarnation no need to teach. people in India already knew during that time. rebirth is what Buddha redefined the meaning since He taught selflessness or not soul. rebirth is every moment. now we also discovered that the cells of our body undergo an entire change every 7 years. however i do came across a school from zazen that reject reincarnation. they had jump the gun into going straight into Enlightenment, as when one is rid of karma, there's no more rebirth. they stress on emptiness a lot. no this, no that, no rebirth etc.
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
?brother, are u confused? did i sound like i agreed that human came from ape?. the missing link i already know and mentioned to u. or are u supporting me or thought i disagreed. funny.reincarnation no need to teach. people in India already knew during that time. rebirth is what Buddha redefined the meaning since He taught selflessness or not soul. rebirth is every moment. now we also discovered that the cells of our body undergo an entire change every 7 years. however i do came across a school from zazen that reject reincarnation. they had jump the gun into going straight into Enlightenment, as when one is rid of karma, there's no more rebirth. they stress on emptiness a lot. no this, no that, no rebirth etc.
/\
You said Lucy evolving to man is OK, but Lucy is an ape. So I am not confused, but are you?
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html
So you are agreeing that Buddha did not teach reincarnation and in fact rejected it? And what does the knowledge that our cells can renew and repair themselves (again this testify to an intelligent designer) have anything to do with rebirth?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You said Lucy evolving to man is OK, but Lucy is an ape. So I am not confused, but are you?
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html
So you are agreeing that Buddha did not teach reincarnation and in fact rejected it? And what does the knowledge that our cells can renew and repair themselves (again this testify to an intelligent designer) have anything to do with rebirth?
oh, no wonder, from a documentry i saw, they say Lucy where more 2 legged and non-ape like, so i was thinking that Lucy was more human like compare to the four legged(?) ape. but what ever, i also not interested, if she is ape-like, then we skip this to the next that is more human-like. as long as i agreed that there's still a missing link and a little change/mutation/"evolving" in body/bone structure/skin color is ok due to location and different habits. yes?
Buddha never teach yes, but also never rejected reincarnation, as there's still karma. karma is the cause of reincarnation. so long as one has not reached an arahat stage, they still undergo endless reincarnation. rebirth is more like becoming again, stream of consciousness, cycles in nature, continuum. nothing is fixed unchanging. hinduism thought that their god was unchanging, but Buddha said no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)
dunno, rejecting reincarnation in some zazen school is a skill in mean(?) to directly jump into a higher level. though if jump wrongly, can result into nullism.
/\
-
No traditional Zen schools reject rebirth.
Only some modernist nihilist American "Buddhist".
They are plain nihilists... shouldn't be called Buddhist at all. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No traditional Zen schools reject rebirth.
Only some modernist nihilist American "Buddhist".
They are plain nihilists... shouldn't be called Buddhist at all.
yea. -
Originally posted by sinweiy:
oh, no wonder, from a documentry i saw, they say Lucy where more 2 legged and non-ape like, so i was thinking that Lucy was more human like compare to the four legged(?) ape. but what ever, i also not interested, if she is ape-like, then we skip this to the next that is more human-like. as long as i agreed that there's still a missing link and a little change/mutation/"evolving" in body/bone structure/skin color is ok due to location and different habits. yes?
Buddha never teach yes, but also never rejected reincarnation, as there's still karma. karma is the cause of reincarnation. so long as one has not reached an arahat stage, they still undergo endless reincarnation. rebirth is more like becoming again, stream of consciousness, cycles in nature, continuum. nothing is fixed unchanging. hinduism thought that their god was unchanging, but Buddha said no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)
dunno, rejecting reincarnation in some zazen school is a skill in mean(?) to directly jump into a higher level. though if jump wrongly, can result into nullism.
/\
That's the problem with evolution. The evidence is so scanty that evolutionists are desperate to make a big issue out of a few pieces of bones. It makes for a great story with lots of money in it. It will usually last for a while so that they can milk it for a while. And then when it is finally revealed as just an ape, they call it still a relative of humans and look for the next thing to hype on.
So if Buddha never teach reincarnation, yet you claimed that he never rejected reincarnation, then wouldn't your belief in reincarnation be a belief resting on silence?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
So if Buddha never teach reincarnation, yet you claimed that he never rejected reincarnation, then wouldn't your belief in reincarnation be a belief resting on silence?
because we have the Jataka stories of Buddha's past lifes practicing as a bodhisattva to bag reality of reincarnation. we also don't reject karma in the conventional truth. Buddhas/bodhiattvas can come and go in a form of "rebirth" into samsara to help sentient beings attained enlightenment./\
-
science and all that evolution shit is unneccessary!
i hate science
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
because we have the Jataka stories of Buddha's past lifes practicing as a bodhisattva to bag reality of reincarnation. we also don't reject karma in the conventional truth. Buddhas/bodhiattvas can come and go in a form of "rebirth" into samsara to help sentient beings attained enlightenment./\
Reincarnation would require the existence of "self", so wouldn't that be contrary to Buddha's teachings?
http://buddhism.about.com/od/karmaandrebirth/a/reincarnation.htm
http://www.yellowrobe.com/teachings/rebirth/192-an-explanation-of-rebirth.html?start=2
-
Originally posted by lovepoptarts:
science and all that evolution shit is unneccessary!
i hate science
I love science. But I am not a scientist. ; )
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Reincarnation would require the existence of "self", so wouldn't that be contrary to Buddha's teachings?
http://buddhism.about.com/od/karmaandrebirth/a/reincarnation.htm
http://www.yellowrobe.com/teachings/rebirth/192-an-explanation-of-rebirth.html?start=2
good links! explained it.often you see, we neither attached to either. we reject nullism and eternalism. thought u read:
Emptiness and Existence
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/465175
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
often you see, we neither attached to either. we reject nullism and eternalism. thought u read:Emptiness and Existence
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/465175
/\
Yes, I did read that. But I also see inconsistencies. On one hand it seems there is a rejection of both, yet again it is often spoken as though both are also believed in some sense, but then explained away as conventional truths?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Yes, I did read that. But I also see inconsistencies. On one hand it seems there is a rejection of both, yet again it is often spoken as though both are also believed in some sense, but then explained away as conventional truths?
quite common, as we, all and all reject extremism. moreover Buddha achieved Enlightenment through moderation. sentient beings are attached to conventional truths, hence He need to use it to teach, leading them into the Ultimate truth. it's skillful means./\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
quite common, as we, all and all reject extremism. moreover Buddha achieved Enlightenment through moderation. sentient beings are attached to conventional truths, hence He need to use it to teach, leading them into the Ultimate truth. it's skillful means./\
Which is precisely my point, that inconsistent and even self-refuting statements are being made, and then excused or rationalised away as "conventional truths".