Ok, I apologize if there has been a similar thread to this one already posted, but I did a quick search and didn't find anything, so here goes. Do you believe in reincarnation? What is your reasoning? And if so, why do you think we are reincarnated?

I think we are sort of re-incarnate.

From a compleatly scientific POV, the energies, matter, and patterns which define you (assuming that there is no soul, just the stuff we can see), still has to go somewhere when you die. The matter is obviously re-used, but so is the energy. The earth is largely a closed system, with the excption of the constant input of energy from the sun. The energy which you are made of comes and goes through the intake of food, the output of heat and work, etc, etc. You are not a closed system. However, the patterns of how the energy flows in your body, how it is handled and expended, is what defines you as opposed to me.

That pattern, while you are alive, has an effect on the world around you, both in macroscopic terms (I eat a sandwhich, the sandwhich has been very changed), and microscopic terms (the EM radiation from the electrical activity in my body extends beyond the physical limits of my skin). When you die, those patterns also have an effect on the surrounding one, though a very subtle one. Your pattern is split up and divided throughout the area where you die; altered by your death, and altered by the energy patterns of everything around you at the time: wind, rain, bugs, dogs, etc.

For a visual example of what I mean, put your hand in a tub of water, and start making waves. These wave are the pattern that I'm talking about. Now place a few floating toys in the water. Do you see the effect they have on "your" pattern? And the effects that your pattern has on them? Now get someone else to make waves in the tub. There is still a pattern, but a very intracate one. two waves, interacting with each other and the floating objects, to create peaks and troughs in a very in-depth way. Now stop your waving. You watch as the effect of your waves decrease, they seem to diasapear under the strength of the other person's waves. However, in fact the effect of your waves doesn't actually go away, it just get smaller and smaller until it is not noticeable in comperison with the waves the other person is making.

The same goes for your energy patterns when you die. your effect doesn't go away, it just gets smaller and smaller over time. However, this was not covered in the waves example, your effect changes how other things make their waves, how they understand and live in the world. This would be more akin to the second person making waves above not knowing how to make waves when you first aks them to do so, but they learn by watching you, and mimicing. Your method and pattern has now passed in a subtle way to that next person. Well, before your effects, both macroscopic and microscopic, fade to the point where they are no longer noticable, they have a large effect on your surroundings, which change to become more like you for your exsistance.

So, in my opinion, using only ideas accepted by science (you are alive, you will die, you give off very low levels of EM radiation, things are effected by EM radiation, the effect doesn't ever end, but gets smaller and smaller as distance gets larger, etc), you are re-incarnated in the sence that everything is more like you after your life, by you being there.

I don't have any faiths or believes as to a soul or 100%-new-body-same-being type re-incarnation. I haven't gotten that far, yet.

I hadn't read something as interesting in a loooooong while, thanks for lighting up that fire again :D

I think i see what you are getting at. . . I was thinking more in terms of a consciousness that carries on after an individual's death to take on another form. I would prefer not to be reincarnated in this way although some experiences from my early childhood(strange memories and such) make me wonder about it.

Likely.
I think that each generation of children are smarter than the earlier and this has something to do with reincarnation and past learning. There have been quite a lot of unproved incidents where children claimed to be some one else too!

Originally posted by UltiTruth
Likely.
I think that each generation of children are smarter than the earlier and this has something to do with reincarnation and past learning.

You can also add the level of education and oppertunities the new crop of offspring had. Each new generation is presented with more and more new ways of learning and better ways of obtaining knowledge. A lot more easier and streamlined then your parents day and age, wouldn't you agree?


There have been quite a lot of unproved incidents where children claimed to be some one else too!

I have heard many of these accounts also, although i still debate their validity.

I think reincarnation may be a process whereby we may become 'better', and more perfect each time. The soul probably becomes purer and attains higher levels of awareness each time it is reincarnated, provided that it lives a virtous life ofcourse.

Originally posted by sargentlard
You can also add the level of education and oppertunities the new crop of offspring had. Each new generation is presented with more and more new ways of learning and better ways of obtaining knowledge. A lot more easier and streamlined then your parents day and age, wouldn't you agree?
Agreed. But all the same, don't the children of the day seem to have better IQ?

Originally posted by UltiTruth
Agreed. But all the same, don't the children of the day seem to have better IQ?

I believe the IQ level hasn't changed. The Parents would have been just as productive had they had such resources, as their kids, avaliable to them at a young age. A significant IQ change in humans would take significant amount of time. I actually find the new generation to be slower than their parents.

I am not too sure about whether such observations would hold true in other countries though. I Primarily speak of the US.

If they do have a better IQ then it would make for some very interesting research on the subject...are there any known of?

Originally posted by sargentlard
A significant IQ change in humans would take significant amount of time. I actually find the new generation to be slower than their parents.


In case you forgot, a person's IQ is their intelligence compared to the rest of that age group. The average of all IQ's is always 100; that is how they're defined. To say that "a significant IQ change in humans would take (a) significant amount of time" doesn't make any sense.

Eric

Children aren't born with higher IQ potential than previous generations, but there are myriad factors to explain why some of them may appear to be smarter / younger.

Bear in mind that most of the kids who appear to be smart are usually from comfortable, middle class homes, but that's only because they've been afforded more opportunities to potentialise their intelligence, than poorer children (who are by no means dummies).

Just a few of the previously mentioned factors: smarter parenting, smarter kids TV, technology designed for kids, more freedom for kids, more respect for kids and a plethora of easily accessible knowledge, music, art and writing that has been buildng generation upon generation.

If it were the case that our overall intelligence increased simply through reincarnation (by retaining previous knowledge subconsciously), we should have reached states of perfection and been travelling to the stars thousands of years ago.

One thing that is apparent though, is that everyone seems to be born with a distinct personality and a certain potential for intelligence and talent; there seems to be a blueprint, which you can probably attribute to genetics and DNA. The person's development is then dependent on uncountable outside forces.

Having said all that, I do happen to have my own whimsical theory on reincarnation, based on immortal, vibrating frequencies. I'll expand on that if anyone asks me to.

Hey,

I would like to share my experience with you guy, which is quite relevant to this thread. Now this story is not hearsay….

My cousin when he started speaking started saying his name was something else … when he was 5 years old he started telling stories about him being married with kids and also spoke about his train accident in which he was killed….

My family being very close were really concerned and we tried to check the story out ..My mom drove my cousin and his mom to the city in which my cousin claimed he was from…. We found the place and the family …and they were shocked to hear that …. The story checked out alright … In fact they even got a closure since they were under an impression that there was a foul play involved in the death of their family member…
After my cousin spoke with his “original” family for couple of time …he started forgetting everything ….and after couple of years he did not even remember even after we reminded him about the incident…..Right now he gets annoyed when someone reminds him …its all a big joke in our family …but I am sure it a case of Re-incarnation or soul sharing the same body …to bring closure to their family…

Guru, it's all the little things like this that add up to make reincarnation seem quite possible. I'm not too comfortable with the idea myself, but do you think the newly deceased person has other options?

Originally posted by invisibleone
Guru, it's all the little things like this that add up to make reincarnation seem quite possible. I'm not too comfortable with the idea myself, but do you think the newly deceased person has other options?

How about actually dying? Is that not an option? If you're going to argue for reincarnation, saying that there's no other option is not logical. Instead, point to evidence (no solid evidence yet, but anecdotes are intriguing.)

what evidence would be satisfactory?

Some sort of repeatable method of bringing to the consious mind prior-life memories which were then verifiable would be scientifically sound. Some method that worked on nearly everyone.

That there isn't a method that works on nearly everyone, I came to my secondary conclusion form the above- it may be possible that energy patterns, etc, after death, somehow maintaine conherence enough to be imprinted on a new being as it is being formed. So while a bit farther out on the end of the "far-fetch science" branch, there is a small probability that a person could have memories/habits/similarities to someone who had died, simply due to vibrational effects of their matter/energy. I'm not saying it happens or that it's likely, I'm just saying it's possible, and that it might explain why some people seem to have these memories, and some don't.

I also see a larger chance of this happening, given the possibility that the 3d universe is not flat, but folded/crumpled, and that particles which exsist across vast spacial distances seem to remain connected to a certain degree. This may allow for beings to be simlilarly connected, if in fact life is a naturally occuring phenomenon - if it is an "attractor point" in chaos theory terms. If life brings to it what it needs, based on simple physics in 4 spacial dimentions, then it's possible that life may also attract life, thus improving the chances that a dying (weakening) vibrational pattern can effect a newly forming one.
Anyone who know physics but thinks the above sounds like quakery, I'm sorry, but I haven't come up with a better explenation for this yet. I just see feilds extending in a 4th spacial dimention, of which we are a partial result, and I see things over-lapping and adding to each other...it just makes sense to me.

River Wind

With your EM theories you'd really like a book called 'The Field' by someone whose name I've forgotten. It an exploration of new research into the quantum vaccuum/zero point field. The science may be a bit dodgy (I wouldn't know) but it does at least purport to be about science. It's a good read and roughly backs up your view.

then I think it may exist in the electrical magnetic frequencies buzzing away in our water molecules.

Water molecules can copy any frequency being emitted by any magnetic energy it comes into contact with; vibrating in unison. As we are made up of more than 70% water and as it is continuously being pumped round our bodies in blood and by capillary action, our water is continually buzzing with ever changing information contained in every individual cell.

What if, the frequencies going on in our bodies (and picked up by our water) are actually universal (decipherable) codes carrying our body's ever changing information that can be mathematically converted in some type of 'other' dimension?

At any instance in time, our frequencies reflect our total state of being; our needs, wants and desires, our mental, spiritual and emotional states; our id.

So far so good? Ok, we carry on.

Every single second, we are being bombarded by billions of neutrinos. There are 3 recognised types and another theoretical one. They arrive from many sources and some, it has been proved, can react with water nuclei. It is thought by some that neutrinos can oscillate with 2 different frequencies simultaneously and can change form into other elements continuously back and forth. Neutrinos travel almost at the speed of light and can pass through anything, but when they collide in our bodies they produce showers of secondary neutrinos, which fly around all over the place as they dissipate.

What if through some weird process, the neutrinos were able to pick up this iformation from our water, as they hurtled and exploded inside of us? Some of them would be hurled through space to wherever and some of them would be hurled across Earth, passing through all types of things and organisms as they did so. Maybe, some of them come back to us by orbiting the Earth at body level? Maybe, the secondary neutrinos dump the frequencies in organisms that are vibrating at very similar cycles, as they dissipate?

Maybe, we are losing bits of our spirit and gaining bits of other spirits continuously through this process. Don't forget, we attract frequencies that are very similar to ours, so there's no shocks to the system and of course, we are influenced by them (psychologically, emotionally and genetically), but we are totally unaware of this process because it starts from the moment of conception and only ends when the body dies.

This might explain many mysteries such as, child prodigies, mass hysteria, power of positive (and negative) thinking, deja vu, feeling bad vibes, healing, self healing etc. This could also explain why mutations usually happen en masse when there is a massive universal need, such as after major catastrophe's.

I'm no scientist and I don't know how well this idea sits with Quantum Theory, but I've been mulling it over in my head for the past 8 years or so and have even written an allegorical novel-length tale, in my attempt to come to grips with it and to enable me to present it to Joe Blow in a way they might understand. I'm still developing the idea, which sometimes I find impossible to believe and sometimes think is absolutely on the right track.

Tablariddim
It is an amazing theory and I would really appreciate if you can expand more on that , As I feel that your theory or thought takes into account all sorts of life whether it be carbon based as we see on earth or non-carbon based as might be in some remote part of the universe.

I was watching Larry King last night he had John Edward who is a Psychic and the host of Crossing over... he during a phone conversation could convey a message from the caller's dead mother talking about a picture frame next to the person and even verified that the person who was calling was standing in the kitchen...it was amazing...gives you a lot to think about life after death ...it cannot be just Heaven and hell it has to be more than that ..which can be explained by science at higher level....Maybe our soul is part of some chemical not found on the periodic table.

Who knows ... its God's idea of saying if I tell you I have to Kill you
:D

Guru... thanks.

My idea encompasses all life forms on Earth and is based on the fact that every organism is made up mostly of water and that they all emit electrical energy, these 2 facts are the common denominators that are shared by all life on this planet.

I think that water is not native to Earth and that it smashed into the planet when it was just a sterile rock floating round the sun and cooling off. I think the frozen water contained in the massive comet that hit the Earth breaking up its crust and forming the continents must have been awash with trillions of frequencies, the water was in effect, intelligent.

The frequencies, or intelligence contained in the water were the catalyst between water, sun and soil that enabled something as inoccuous as dissolved earth to transform into bacteria and then to evolve into all life as we know it; my mind truly boggles at this apparently 'automatic' and 'random' event. Random, my ass!

I don't think life began in just one particular place or with just one particular organism. If that had been the case, every life form would share most of the DNA of every other, including of plants, bacteria and viruses. Life must have begun in every crack, nook and cranny that contained water.

The frequencies in the water caused the reactions that occured between sun soil and water to occur in such an uncannilly clever way that the correct amounts of local elements were somehow utilised to create organisms that were apparently perfect for their environment and that were apparently able to mutate and evolve.

Well how do life forms know, when to mutate and evolve?

When neutrinos dump enough information into them.

Example: A comet hits Earth, most of life is destroyed, but from the ashes, new life evolves. New life, which is related to previous organisms but has a whole lot more and original genes. Improved and adapted. But how can one organism just transform into another and one, which always happens to be perfect for its environment?

Imagine the trauma after such a catastrophe, and consider that despite the fact that nearly everything has died and in spite of the fact that the temperature, climate and light has changed and without even taking into account the fact that evolution is supposed to be a long drawn out process, we keep finding evidence of mutations and evolution happening relatively quickly within all life forms after such events. I know of a documented case of black coloured city birds changing to fair over just a few generations after the soot blackened buildings they nested on had been cleaned up! How can that be possible, without universal interference?

Every life form contains a mutation code in its genes and this may be programmed and set off by the frequencies contained in the neutrinos. Remember, frequencies of every life form are whizzing through every other life form constantly and every organism has access to universal knowledge of everything, because of the neutrinos. When the need arises, the mutations begin taking effect immediately.

Enough for now.

Originally posted by river-wind
Some sort of repeatable method of bringing to the consious mind prior-life memories which were then verifiable would be scientifically sound. Some method that worked on nearly everyone.

That there isn't a method that works on nearly everyone, I came to my secondary conclusion ....
Another method would be Buddhist practice. Not scientifically sound but in principle it works on everyone.

The traditional view of reincarnation and its modern incarnations (heh, heh) is, to me, too literal. What River-Wind wrote resonates with me. I try to stop seeing myself and others as strictly individual. I cultivate the view that instead of individuals making waves in a tub, as River-Wind puts it, we are the water itself. The waves and the makers of the waves are one attribute of our existence but we forget at our peril that we are the water.

What does this imply for the subject of reincarnation? If you understand that all humans are one and all species are one across space and time, then the question of the reincarnation of a grasping individual fades away. I don't worry about being reincarnated because I am one with all of us, human, plant, animal and rocks.

On a more concrete level, I see a human as a collaborative collection of a trillion cells. They conspire to create "me". How did this conspiracy occur? It was a participative effort of the humans around me over the last 39 years within the environments I occupied from moment to moment. Likewise, I suspect that if a trillion cells can cooperate to make "me", then fifty billion humans over the course of a million years can be considered to have made "humanity", which to me has the attributes of a living, growing, conscious and evolving entity. By extension the same could be said for all life. Individuals bubble up out of this entity and have their time as self-perceived "people", acting as receivers and carriers of humanity and transmitting it on to the next generation. Then we subside back into the foam of humanity whence we arose. And that is OK.

Could an individual be carried on, in part or whole, to a new human? Sure, but it seems unnecessary and not in keeping with the subtlety of nature.

te jen

Nice post.

Thanks, Canute.

If human consciousness is on some level participatory, it is interesting to surmise that the experiences described by those having done deep meditation may actually be a direct experience of participatory consciousness. Silence the self, hear the crowd.

If consciousness has a participatory attribute, then it is probably nonlocal. That is, human minds form a network of consciousness shared most strongly with those we are closest to and diminishing outward to a background level with all of humanity. Given the six degrees of separation, we aren't all that far removed from anyone anyway. I imagine that after death we could experience existence as those we knew in life experienced us. At first this would be a fairly strong experience but would gradually fade into the background over decades.

This has interesting implications. If we treat others with compassion and love, the death experience would be very pleasant. If we were real sons-of-bitches to everyone around us, then I can't imagine a better description of hell than the unadulterated experience of their emotions and perceptions of us.

I guess the real question for discussion is whether interacting minds can form a sort of meta-mind, and whether it could be conscious in some fashion.

Hmm, I think it's easier just to say that we're all part of the same thing. We don't have to participate with each other, we are each other. Vishnu is everywhere as they used to say.

The idea that nothing of us survives our death is daft imo. It's an ad hoc conjecture of an obscure sect of fanatical materialists who won't listen to reason. ;)

Originally posted by Canute
The idea that nothing of us survives our death is daft imo. It's an ad hoc conjecture of an obscure sect of fanatical materialists who won't listen to reason. ;)

It is not so "black and white" canute.

It is a problem of definitions. How you define the "self" determines the necessary answer to the queston of immortality. If you identify the self with the infinite, eternal unified "substance" (or "consciousness" or whatever you want to call it) from which everything is made then the self is necessarily eternal, but then it is also necessarily infinite and thus there can be only one self. Thus this view, taken up by beautifully Plotinus, necessitates the idea that the individual is an illusion, a "multiple personality disorder" caused by differentiation of this substance into its infinite patterns. Thus if the "soul" is identified with the substance then there can be only one infinite and etrnal soul because substance is undifferentiated and thus cannot be defined as any particular conditioned and thus finite amount of substance. Therefore this definition of the self necessitates that there can be only one self which is also the world and substance itself. It therefore actually dissolves the meaning of the self altogether.

IMHO, though this view is logically correct and is true it defeats the purpose of the word "self" as a relative distinction between self and world. It is a beautiful and true concept nonetheless.

If you define the self as a finite, condition, modification, differentiation or pattern of the infinite undifferentiated substance (or "is-ness") thus maintaining the relative distinction between self and world, but realizing that ultimately they are made out of the same continuity of substance and thus all distinctions are only temporary modifications, then you maintain the usefullness of the term "self" as used in everyday language. The problem is that all modes are finite and subject to duration. This definition thus renders the individual self as non-eternal though it doesn't preclude the self from participating in the eternal.

So, yes certainly SOMETHING survives death because substance cannot be destroyed, but if we identify our "self" with this something then there can be only one self or one infinite and eternal soul in existence. Conversely one can see the self as a modification of substance and thus logically non-equivalent with the infinite and eternal substance though it is a conditioned part of that substance with no absolute distinctions whatsoever. It's all a matter of which set of definitions and cosequences you feel most comfortable with because both are true consequences of arbitrarily defined terms.

A game of many different arbitrary sets of definitions all leading to the exact same truth which seems different only from the surface as viewed from within any one of the singular sets of definitions marking artificial boundaries in the semantic continuum.


Spinoza took a different route to immortality when he said that to understand the true nature of reality is to partake in the eternality of substance--to understand nature outside of duration and beyond the temporary pattern which is the self. This is a more accurate form of immortality than trying to imagine the self as the finite and temporal modification of which we are all so intimately aware as somehow transcending its true nature and existing for an infinite amount of time. Eternity has nothing to do with time at all. It is outside the flow of time and thus it makes no difference how much time we have to experience it.

Did I mention 'self'?

Originally posted by Canute
Did I mention 'self'?

What does "us" mean as in "nothing of us survives our death"? Who is "we" and "each of us". Those are selves. Must every single term be the exact one in order for you to see the meaning beneath them? You are yet again stuck in particulars.

I agree that everything is "one." That is, everything is somehow connected to everything else. However, there still remains the persistent illusion of the "I" or (the ego) which makes it difficult to put things into perspective. This might be going off topic a little bit here, but I'd like to share my thoughts anyways. Most of us are self conscious organisms, and many of us believe we are in complete control of our "selves" and our individual lives; rather than a part of the whole. Undoubtedly whether the "self' exists or not, most people have a strong sense of it. There is still some uniqueness to every individual organism. . .perhaps fooling us into believing we are rather distinct from one another. So, in conclusion, I believe that while we all are intrinsically connected, evolution or creation (whichever you believe in) has designed us to think of ourselves as seperate entities. Any explanations?

Originally posted by invisibleone
I agree that everything is "one." That is, everything is somehow connected to everything else. However, there still remains the persistent illusion of the "I" or (the ego) which makes it difficult to put things into perspective. This might be going off topic a little bit here, but I'd like to share my thoughts anyways. Most of us are self conscious organisms, and many of us believe we are in complete control of our "selves" and our individual lives; rather than a part of the whole. Undoubtedly whether the "self' exists or not, most people have a strong sense of it. There is still some uniqueness to every individual organism. . .perhaps fooling us into believing we are rather distinct from one another. So, in conclusion, I believe that while we all are intrinsically connected, evolution or creation (whichever you believe in) has designed us to think of ourselves as seperate entities. Any explanations?

It is a matter of perspective. From the relative perspective of the differentiations we are seperate "individuals", but from the absolute perspective we are all part of one infinite and eternal entity. Which one of these perspectives you attatch the concept of the "self" to will determine whether or not immortality applies to the self, but this decision has other logical consequences as well which were pointed out in my previous post.

Eastern philosophies consider the 'self' to be part of our shared illusion, dependent on other dependent things. This is one of the meanings of 'non-dual', in that self and not-self is two things and are thus not fundamental. 'Self' depends on brain, and brains certainly don't survive death.

Any Buddhists around for a comment?

Originally posted by Canute
[B]Eastern philosophies consider the 'self' to be part of our shared illusion, dependent on other dependent things. This is one of the meanings of 'non-dual', in that self and not-self is two things and are thus not fundamental. 'Self' depends on brain, and brains certainly don't survive death.

I suppose that you are suggesting that somehow this is fundamentally different from what I actually said...behind the words themselves? If you know how to get beyond the arbitrary choice of words to the core of my actual meaning and through it to its necessary logical conclusion you will find that I said basically the very same thing.

Notice how I said that the self is an arbitrary humanly-defined distinction. Notice also how I said it was a matter of perspective. It is true that perspective itself is an illusion based on a localized point of view in an omnilocal medium. Notice also how I mentioned that there are two basic ways to arbitrarily define the self. These correspond to your "self and not-self" duality. Though "self" is quite obviously explained in my post, the perspective of "not-self" was also specified explicitly in the following quote, "Therefore this definition of the self [the identification of the "self" with the undifferentiated ylem (substance or consciousness) itself] necessitates that there can be only one self which is also the world and substance itself. It therefore actually dissolves the meaning of the self altogether."

Thus the two perspectives of "self" are quite obviously an anthropocentric (societally "shared") illusion and the distinction between our two perspectives i.e. Buddhism vs. Spinozism is also an illusion of perspective -- if you can see both vantage points the nature of this illusion is quite apparent. They are two different ways of looking at the very same truth--two points from which the same horizon is visible, while many other perspectives get blocked from seeing the horizon by local distinctions of the mind.


Here is a quote I just found last night that illustrates my point. It is from "The Book of God" by Spinoza. See http://www.yesselman.com/ShortTreatiseEbk.htm [[I will place comments in these double brackets to help you see beyond Spinoza's arbitrary choice of words to the resonant similarity in meaning with your own arbitrary word-preferences]]

"[1-5] To this we reply: (1) that "part" [[self]] and "whole" [[aggregate of selves or objects or if you prefer "us" or "we"]] are not true or real entities, but only "things of perception,'' [[-illusions!!!-]] and consequently there are in Nature neither whole nor parts [[the duality demands its own negation. It is "non-dual"]]. (2) A thing composed of different parts must be such that the parts thereof, taken separately, can be conceived and understood one without another. "



Any Buddhists around for a comment?

Yes, I just gave one.

Regards,
sub...

Yes. I see that. But you are talking about choice of definitions, (very well I think), and I was talking about what some people consider to actually be the case.

Originally posted by Canute

FYI, I just made an edit right after you replied. I added a quote from Spinoza that you may be interested in.


Yes. I see that. But you are talking about choice of definitions, (very well I think), and I was talking about what some people consider to actually be the case.

Choice of definitions is the foundation of any system of thought. If you change those definitions then you change the necessary (true) logical consequences and thus the order of the words themselves. Thus you can have two systems of thought which on the surface (at the word level) seem quite different indeed, but once you grasp the differences at the root level with the definitions and can follow the consequences and get comfortable enough with the system to abandon the words altogether, then you are in a position to judge them for what they truely are and these seemingly different systems can appear almost identical in meaning and the differences can become quite superficial indeed and exist ultimately as subtle shifts of emphasis.

Originally posted by invisibleone
I agree that everything is "one." That is, everything is somehow connected to everything else. However, there still remains the persistent illusion of the "I" or (the ego) which makes it difficult to put things into perspective. This might be going off topic a little bit here, but I'd like to share my thoughts anyways. Most of us are self conscious organisms, and many of us believe we are in complete control of our "selves" and our individual lives; rather than a part of the whole. Undoubtedly whether the "self' exists or not, most people have a strong sense of it. There is still some uniqueness to every individual organism...perhaps fooling us into believing we are rather distinct from one another. So, in conclusion, I believe that while we all are intrinsically connected, evolution or creation (whichever you believe in) has designed us to think of ourselves as seperate entities. Any explanations?

I wanted to jump in here for two reasons: 1) the religion forum has become a barroom brawl; and 2) you made an interesting observation on the interconnected "oneness." Please forgive me if I am repeating something. I didn't read the whole thread.

This "oneness" you speak of is what I believe. The ego or "I" is only present before we shed our Earthsuit. Upon shedding of the Earthsuit, the "I" is dissolved. The "self" returns to the "one." The "self" is how we perceive ourselves while we incarnate the Earthsuit.

There is only "one" soul, not a soul for every body. We are interconnected. We are separate entities only through our Earthsuits, but even then we are connected to our parents, ancestors, progeny and each other for the same reason. I like to look at the human race as "one" body and "one" spirit. This is my perception of God--the pure energy that glues us together as "one."

I've brought this up on the religion forum, but maybe it's not what they want to hear on the religion forum. There's too much negativity going on in there. I don't think anyone understands the concept of "oneness." We are "one." We are "all."

Most people do not want to contemplate unity -

1. The concept of dualism is implicit in judeochristoislam (jci). You have to submit to / have a personal relationship with / be judged by a god. This is the key to controlling the faithful, since you really can't have that kind of I/thou relationship if you perceive a unity.

2. An internalized sense of unity means that you cannot use typical human coping mechanisms like demonizing the "other", praying for help, acquiring a sense of righteousness, etc. Adherents of jci have an easier path because justice belongs to god and as long as you toe the line you need not concern yourself with the actions or the fates of other people or things. Jehovah's Witnesses are an extreme example of this.

It is interesting that people fear the idea of unity more than the idea of loneliness.

Sir Mojo

More good stuff from Spinoza.

Definitions are important. However it is inevitable that if you insist on pinning them down completely it's impossible to ever say anything.

Buddhists find the self to be an illusion or 'epiphenomenon'. If you try very hard you might be able to find a definition of 'self' for which this isn't true, but I very much doubt it.

Non-duality is not a philosophy that requires vast mental ability and readings of Spinoza to understand. This is why Buddhists tend to call it an 'affirmation', thus avoiding the confusing third-person academic/mental connotations of 'philosophy'. It is an experience of reality, not one of a list of theoretical possibilities.

It certainly cannot be understood from a book by Spinoza, any more than it can be understood from a book by the Buddha.

What do YOU believe to be true about reincarnation? If you're view is based on an acceptance of Spinoza's logic then it's his view, not yours.

te jen

Agree with what you said. But when you say "It is interesting that people fear the idea of unity more than the idea of loneliness" I'm not so sure. Wouldn't it also be true that in a sense 'oneness' is the very ultimate in loneliness?

Medicine Woman

Not surprised you had trouble in Religion!

Did you mean to say that everything is one, or just the human race?

Originally posted by Canute
[B]Sir Mojo
Definitions are important. However it is inevitable that if you insist on pinning them down completely it's impossible to ever say anything.

Quite the inverse actually. It is the failure to pin them down that causes miscommunication and all the gordian knots of epistemology.


Buddhists find the self to be an illusion or 'epiphenomenon'. If you try very hard you might be able to find a definition of 'self' for which this isn't true, but I very much doubt it.

I am not looking for such a definition. The self is an artificial distinction based on natural differentiation of a continuous medium. The differentiations are relative differences of modification not an absolute distinction of substance.


Non-duality is not a philosophy that requires vast mental ability and readings of Spinoza to understand. This is why Buddhists tend to call it an 'affirmation', thus avoiding the confusing third-person academic/mental connotations of 'philosophy'. It is an experience of reality, not one of a list of theoretical possibilities.

It is a metaphysics among many other things.


It certainly cannot be understood from a book by Spinoza, any more than it can be understood from a book by the Buddha.

Not "more" just differently, but the more ways you can understand it the better IMPO.


What do YOU believe to be true about reincarnation? If you're view is based on an acceptance of Spinoza's logic then it's his view, not yours.

Ooooh, I could say the same about you and Buddhism, but I know better.

Logic is not owned by anyone and I practice no exclusivity as should be entirely obvious. I use knowledge from very many sources and form my own opinion just like many other people do.

I believe reincarnation is also a matter of arbitrary human distinctions. Yes some part of the self survives death to be reincarnated in another bieng or in bits and pieces in many other beings, but the same substance is in continual flux into and out of the being while it is living and it is this flux that enables the stability of the form to exist. Thus since there is no steady identifiable portion of substance that makes up any one being and since there is no distinction from one portion of substance in flux to another, then that which survives death also survives life and all its differentiations. Thus I believe in a simultaneous infinite incarnation of which we all partake as animate, differentiated beings. There is one being made of many beings whose "soul" is the infinite and continuous substance or consiousness.

To me, the standard concept of reincarnation and karma is largely a moral tool similar to that of judeo-christian judgement only much closer to the truth. It still clings erroneously to the self which I think is ultimately a human fiction, but perhaps a necessary one even for the religious aspect of Buddhism.

Originally posted by Canute

te jen

Agree with what you said. But when you say "It is interesting that people fear the idea of unity more than the idea of loneliness" I'm not so sure. Wouldn't it also be true that in a sense 'oneness' is the very ultimate in loneliness?

Certainly so - in the wider sense. I was speaking from the point of view of the jci adherent - he is more afraid of others (hence a resistance to unity) than he is of the lonely relationship between him and his god.

Originally posted by Canute
Medicine Woman

Not surprised you had trouble in Religion!

Did you mean to say that everything is one, or just the human race?

The Spirit is Energy. Everything has energy. I believe in the One Spirit of God (a pure force of positive energy--not an entity). We have separate, individual bodies (Earthsuits) while we're in human (physical) form. When we shed our Earthsuit, our spiritual energy which has always been part of the "whole" returns to the source. This is how I see God. While we're on Earth, we carry the spirit of "God." There is an interconnectedness of everything in creation. The human race can be thought of as "one body," but the mind, intelligence and the spirit do not cease to exist when the body is gone. I don't believe in individual souls for individual people like traditional reincarnation teaches, but I do believe in the One Spirit of "God" dwelling in all. Was I really that beligerant on the religion forum? I just couldn't make a dent in Christian beliefs, or I just didn't realize it. I feel defeated in a way. That's why I came over here. Maybe this forum will all free expression of thoughts and ideas without taking offense.

Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
Quite the inverse actually. It is the failure to pin them down that causes miscommunication and all the gordian knots of epistemology.]
If you like, but I'm with Bertrand Russell on this one. There comes a time when it's necessary to say something rather than keep defining terms. All terms are undefined if you keep analysing them for long enough.


[It is a metaphysics among many other things.]
Oh well, yes. Call it whatever you want. But surely you know what I mean. It's not a hypothesis.


[Not "more" just differently, but the more ways you can understand it the better IMPO.]
It is considered an affirmation precisely because the only way to understand it is to experience it, and thus it is known rather than conjectured.


[Ooooh, I could say the same about you and Buddhism, but I know better.]
Say it, it would be true. Do you think Buddhists get their metaphysics out of a book?


[Logic is not owned by anyone and I practice no exclusivity as should be entirely obvious. I use knowledge from very many sources and form my own opinion just like many other people do.

I believe reincarnation is also a matter of arbitrary human distinctions. Yes some part of the self survives death to be reincarnated in another bieng or in bits and pieces in many other beings, but the same substance is in continual flux into and out of the being while it is living and it is this flux that enables the stability of the form to exist. Thus since there is no steady identifiable portion of substance that makes up any one being and since there is no distinction from one portion of substance in flux to another, then that which survives death also survives life and all its differentiations. Thus I believe in a simultaneous infinite incarnation of which we all partake as animate, differentiated beings. There is one being made of many beings whose "soul" is the infinite and continuous substance or consiousness.]
l'll take that as a no.


To me, the standard concept of reincarnation and karma is largely a moral tool similar to that of judeo-christian judgement only much closer to the truth. It still clings erroneously to the self which I think is ultimately a human fiction, but perhaps a necessary one even for the religious aspect of Buddhism. [/B]
Have you ever looked into Buddhism in any detail?

Originally posted by Canute
[B]If you like, but I'm with Bertrand Russell on this one. There comes a time when it's necessary to say something rather than keep defining terms. All terms are undefined if you keep analysing them for long enough.

Of course, canute. The definitions serve a constructive function and if you continualy analyse them then they cannot serve their function. Since they are entirely arbitrary then yes they are ultimately non-existent and thus undefined.



Oh well, yes. Call it whatever you want. But surely you know what I mean. It's not a hypothesis.

Right, a hypothesis would be scientific.



It is considered an affirmation precisely because the only way to understand it is to experience it, and thus it is known rather than conjectured.

Yes, but there are as many ways to experience it as there are people to experience it. Though the details of this experience wil be different, the core is always the same. The more perspectives you can get of the core the better view you will get.



Say it, it would be true. Do you think Buddhists get their metaphysics out of a book?

A book serves the function of the transmission of knowledge. That is all. There is nothing wrong with books, per se, and any useful book gets its own knowledge from Nature herself. A book is just a transmission device and I see no value in being bibliophobic.



l'll take that as a no.

which should have been obvious already....


Have you ever looked into Buddhism in any detail?

Yes, but "in any detail" is relative, why do you ask?

Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
Of course, canute. The definitions serve a constructive function and if you continualy analyse them then they cannot serve their function. Since they are entirely arbitrary then yes they are ultimately non-existent and thus undefined.
So why all the lengthy definitions of 'self' when there's no dispute here about what it means.


[Right, a hypothesis would be scientific.[/B]
Pardon? Since when do hypotheses have to be scientific?


[Yes, but there are as many ways to experience it as there are people to experience it. Though the details of this experience wil be different, the core is always the same. The more perspectives you can get of the core the better view you will get. [/B]
I think I'd rather trust someone who has actually experienced it, thank you.


[A book serves the function of the transmission of knowledge. That is all. There is nothing wrong with books, per se, and any useful book gets its own knowledge from Nature herself. A book is just a transmission device and I see no value in being bibliophobic.[/B]
Well, yes. Has this got something to do with my original question?


[which should have been obvious already....[/B] It was a very complicated answer you gave, clearly not based on the experience you are explaining above.


[Yes, but "in any detail" is relative, why do you ask? [/B]
Because it seems impossible to persuade you to stop asserting incorrect things about it.

Originally posted by Canute
[B]So why all the lengthy definitions of 'self' when there's no dispute here about what it means.

For the purpose of clarification, because you had misunderstood my point.


Pardon? Since when do hypotheses have to be scientific?

Science is all about hypotheses. Have you heard of the "scientific method"? An hypothesis does not have to be correct to be scientific, otherwise %99 of science would be unscientific.


I think I'd rather trust someone who has actually experienced it, thank you.

You don't have to trust me on anything. This is a discussion. I am presenting an alternate pov. Take it or leave it.


Well, yes. Has this got something to do with my original question?

Well, yes, but if you can't see it so be it.


It was a very complicated answer you gave, clearly not based on the experience you are explaining above.

What experience are you talking about? I have very different experience from you. That is the point of discussion. To exchange experience.


Because it seems impossible to persuade you to stop asserting incorrect things about it.

such as....

Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
For the purpose of clarification, because you had misunderstood my point.
You hadn't made a point before you started lecturing me on defintions. That was you first post in response to mine. I still can't see the point of it, I didn't mention the self, you did.


[Science is all about hypotheses. Have you heard of the "scientific method"? An hypothesis does not have to be correct to be scientific, otherwise %99 of science would be unscientific.[/B]
Do you think I don't know that? Frankly there doesn't seem to be any correlation between my comments and your objections to them.

You had said - "Yes, but there are as many ways to experience it as there are people to experience it." I was suggesting that you have no right to make such a claim, and I will always prefer to listen to people who have such a right. It has nothing to do with povs.


[You don't have to trust me on anything. This is a discussion. I am presenting an alternate pov. Take it or leave it.[/B]
There isn't an alternative point of view. Either you have or you haven't had the experience you talk about, and a theory is not an alternative to an experience, however much you don't agree.


[Well, yes, but if you can't see it so be it.[/B]
I said that Buddhist metaphysics does not come out of a book, as you appear to think it does. You responded by discussing the nature of books. I'm afraid you'll have to explain the connection.



[What experience are you talking about? I have very different experience from you. That is the point of discussion. To exchange experience.[/B]
You cannot exchange experience. That is what I've been trying to say throughout our discussions. The idea is daft.

Buddhist metaphysics is based on experience. It cannot be exchanged with someone else, it cannot be read in a book, and it is not like anyone else's theory - because it is not a theory. This is the point that I cannot seem to get across. You cannot claim knowledge of it if for you it is just a theory. In Buddhism it is reality itself that is being known, not some academic explanation of it.


such as.... [/B]
Such as -

"To me, the standard concept of reincarnation and karma is largely a moral tool similar to that of judeo-christian judgement only much closer to the truth. It still clings erroneously to the self which I think is ultimately a human fiction, but perhaps a necessary one even for the religious aspect of Buddhism."

This is a grave misunderstanding based on the fact that you are convinced that Buddhism is a theory. I'd like to see you produce an example of a skilled Buddhist who clings erroneously to their sense of self for the sake of their religion. It's a ridiculous idea.

If Buddhism was a theory it would be taught as a theory.

Whether Buddhist metaphysics is true or false is a different matter, one you must decide for yourself. If you notice I have not been dogmatic about that, it would be pointless to do so.

Originally posted by Canute

[quote]You had said - "Yes, but there are as many ways to experience it as there are people to experience it." I was suggesting that you have no right to make such a claim, and I will always prefer to listen to people who have such a right. It has nothing to do with povs.

I have no right? What confers the right to experience truth? Subscription to a religion?

Who are you to make such an elitist claim to be some judge of who qualifies to experience truth? You don't know what I have experienced and how it compares to the Buddhist experience. You simply have a faith that Buddhism is some isolated truth absolutely incomparable to any other system.


There isn't an alternative point of view. Either you have or you haven't had the experience you talk about, and a theory is not an alternative to an experience, however much you don't agree.

What experience have I claimed to have had? I am not claiming any religious experience whatsoever.


I said that Buddhist metaphysics does not come out of a book, as you appear to think it does.

Metaphysics does not come out of a book. It goes into a book for transmission to other people. And of course that is not the only means of transmission, nor is a means of understanding truth as should go without saying.


You cannot exchange experience. That is what I've been trying to say throughout our discussions. The idea is daft.

The daft idea is yours not mine. Again you are looking for absolutes. I am not talking about the transmission of the totality of the experience but relative equivalent through the correlation of experiential analogy. That is what communication actually is.


Buddhist metaphysics is based on experience. It cannot be exchanged with someone else, it cannot be read in a book, and it is not like anyone else's theory - because it is not a theory.

Oh ok. Buddhism exists in a vacuum completely above and beyond ALL other metaphysical systems. It is the only true church and anyone who doesn't believe in it and actually experience TRUTH from within the Buddhist system is not truely experiencing TRUTH.

Is that better? TOTAL religious elitism, canute. That is not what Buddhism is supposed to be about. You should know better.


This is the point that I cannot seem to get across. You cannot claim knowledge of it if for you it is just a theory.

I am not claiming anything beyond what I am posting. I am simply discussing and exchanging ideas. I find it quite odd that it upsets your ego that I am pointing out similarities between your sacred idol "Buddhism" and other systems of thought. It just goes to show that you are practicing idolatrous religion whether you know it or not.


In Buddhism it is reality itself that is being known, not some academic explanation of it.

the same goes for all systems of thought that approach the truth. Whether academic or religious makes no difference to the truth expressed at the core of the system.

You simply have an aversion to academia, and it shows. Well I have an aversion to religious idolatry. No theory and no religion are absolutely the only true system...period.



"To me, the standard concept of reincarnation and karma is largely a moral tool similar to that of judeo-christian judgement only much closer to the truth. It still clings erroneously to the self which I think is ultimately a human fiction, but perhaps a necessary one even for the religious aspect of Buddhism."

This is a grave misunderstanding based on the fact that you are convinced that Buddhism is a theory. [quote]

That is not a critique of my simple opinion. It is merely a statement of your disagreement with it.

I am entitled to my own opinion after-all and I am not a believer in any religion even Buddhism.

[quote]I'd like to see you produce an example of a skilled Buddhist who clings erroneously to their sense of self for the sake of their religion. It's a ridiculous idea.

I wasn't suggesting that the skilled Buddhists do that. I was saying that reincarnation is part of the religious aspect of Buddhism for those who need to imagine the continuance of the self and some moral guidance and karmic incentives to act decent to one another.

That is my opinion.


If Buddhism was a theory it would be taught as a theory.

How many times do I have to tell you that I am not claiming that Buddhism is a theory?


Whether Buddhist metaphysics is true or false is a different matter, one you must decide for yourself. If you notice I have not been dogmatic about that, it would be pointless to do so.

I have noticed extreme dogmatism on your part, canute. You continually focus on religious elitism and claim that your Buddhism is unapproachable from any other direction and the absolute only way to reach the truth.

Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
I have no right? What confers the right to experience truth? Subscription to a religion?]
Oh dear. I wish you'd read what I write. Christians believe in Christ, this is a fact. You do not have to be a evangelical Christian to assert it.

I said that you have no right to talk about the experiences of others as if they were yours. Where did I suggest you didn't have right to have them for yourself?


[Who are you to make such an elitist claim to be some judge of who qualifies to experience truth? You don't know what I have experienced and how it compares to the Buddhist experience. You simply have a faith that Buddhism is some isolated truth absolutely incomparable to any other system.
Again, as simply as I can, Buddhist practice is about exploring oneself and ones states of consciousness, thus coming to an understand of reality. This is a fact, one which for some reason you will not accept. You don;t have to believe me, read a book or ask someone else. Also I have never asserted that one has to be a Buddhist to know the truth.

Of course whether Buddhists are right or wrong in their assertions is a quite seperate matter. I won't comment on that. It would be interesting to discuss it but we've never managed to get your basic misconceptions about what Buddhism is or what its practitioners assert.

You cannot talk about experiences without having them. This is not dogmatism or elitism, it is simply what is the case. In philosophy it is known as the 'incommensurability of experience'. if you stick to science and academic philosophy you'll be fine, but please stop making ill informed assertions about Buddhism and duality.


[What experience have I claimed to have had? I am not claiming any religious experience whatsoever. ]
I know. Worse still you haven't understood that Buddhist experience is not religious. This is why I wish you'd stop jumping to conclusions.


[Metaphysics does not come out of a book. It goes into a book for transmission to other people. And of course that is not the only means of transmission, nor is a means of understanding truth as should go without saying.]
That is incoherent. If metaphysics doesn't come out of a book then it cannot be transmitted to anyone else by putting it in one.


[The daft idea is yours not mine. Again you are looking for absolutes. I am not talking about the transmission of the totality of the experience but relative equivalent through the correlation of experiential analogy. That is what communication actually is.]
Experiences are incommensurable and untransmittable.


[Oh ok. Buddhism exists in a vacuum completely above and beyond ALL other metaphysical systems. It is the only true church and anyone who doesn't believe in it and actually experience TRUTH from within the Buddhist system is not truely experiencing TRUTH.

[QUOTE] Is that better? TOTAL religious elitism, canute. That is not what Buddhism is supposed to be about. You should know better.]
Please read what I write before making such responses. I really don't know how it's possible for you to make up such extraordinary interpretations of my words. I also don't see why I should have to keep telling you this stuff. Read a book, there's quite a few good ones about.


[I am not claiming anything beyond what I am posting. I am simply discussing and exchanging ideas. I find it quite odd that it upsets your ego that I am pointing out similarities between your sacred idol "Buddhism" and other systems of thought. It just goes to show that you are practicing idolatrous religion whether you know it or not.]
I despair. I'm making such a simple point. Introspective practices based on apperception and direct knowledge are not the same as deductive disciplines based on axioms and proofs. I don't know why, when I say this, you think I'm some religious nut. I must presume the facts are inconvenient to your theories.


[ the same goes for all systems of thought that approach the truth. Whether academic or religious makes no difference to the truth expressed at the core of the system. ]
I'm not comparing academic approaches with religious ones. Please forget about religion, it is completely irrelevant. In Buddhism (rightly or wrongly, and for better or worse) Christianity and Physics are seen as sharing the same faulty epistemelogical structure.


[You simply have an aversion to academia, and it shows.] I presume that you have some evidence for that assertion. I have no aversion to it at all, but as an approach to knowledge it has obvious and perfectly well known limits that have been well enumerated by numerous intelligent people, most of them academics. I happen to agree with them. I recommend reading Popper, Quine, Russell, Penrose, Plato, and all the many other academics who assert that academic approaches must fail to arrive at the truth.


[Well I have an aversion to religious idolatry.
So do I.


[No theory and no religion are absolutely the only true system...period.]
I agree completely. They cannot be.


I wasn't suggesting that the skilled Buddhists do that. I was saying that reincarnation is part of the religious aspect of Buddhism for those who need to imagine the continuance of the self and some moral guidance and karmic incentives to act decent to one another. That is my opinion.]
I know. Again you confidently assert what Buddhists believe with no understanding. It's just arrogant.


[How many times do I have to tell you that I am not claiming that Buddhism is a theory?]
Now follow through the logical consequences and implications of that fact.


[I have noticed extreme dogmatism on your part, canute. You continually focus on religious elitism and claim that your Buddhism is unapproachable from any other direction and the absolute only way to reach the truth. [/B]
I have never said ot suggested that in my whole life. You're just completely certain that it's what I'm saying, so you don't bother to read properly.

I agree 100% with everything river-wind has said.
I also don't rule out the possibility that being "recycled" does "feel" like something and is in a sense an eternal afterlife.
I doubt it would be anything like any of the afterlifes people have imagined, but something more primal and subtle.
Kind of hard to explain to mere humans;)

Originally posted by Canute
I said that you have no right to talk about the experiences of others as if they were yours.

I am not talking about anyone elses experiences and never have.


Again, as simply as I can, Buddhist practice is about exploring oneself and ones states of consciousness, thus coming to an understand of reality. This is a fact, one which for some reason you will not accept.

I already knew that and accepted it, but buddhism is more than that.


Also I have never asserted that one has to be a Buddhist to know the truth.

But you are asserting that the truth cannot be known from any other perspective, such as through Spinozism.


You cannot talk about experiences without having them.

I am not talking about anyone elses experiences, canute.


I know. Worse still you haven't understood that Buddhist experience is not religious.

I didn't say that the experience was religious necessarily.


That is incoherent. If metaphysics doesn't come out of a book then it cannot be transmitted to anyone else by putting it in one.

Metaphysisc comes from the mind and through the hand it is entered into a book to be transmitted to others. Isn't that obvious?


Experiences are incommensurable and untransmittable.

The point is that we all have a ground of experience that is very similar because we all live in the same ultimate reality. We can use that common ground to elicit responses in other that are RELATIVELY similar to some other experience. I have never said that experience can be transmitted ABSOLUTELY, but to deny any transmission at all is ludicrous. There is a whole industry based on the transmission and dissemination of experience. It is called entertainment. Science is also based on this transmission and so are all forms of acedemia.

Knowledge spreads through the effective transmission of experience, whether it is experience from reality or secondhand experience transmitted through a book.


I despair. I'm making such a simple point. Introspective practices based on apperception and direct knowledge are not the same as deductive disciplines based on axioms and proofs.

I agree, but they can come to the same basic conclusions, nonetheless. And I am not talking about experience here, just logic. I am not saying that reading, pondering and finally understanding Spinoza is the equivalent absolute experience of achieving the same basic understanding through Buddhism. I am saying that they are compatible and that one can help with the understanding of the other.



I don't know why, when I say this, you think I'm some religious nut. I must presume the facts are inconvenient to your theories.

We simply are not communicating effectively. I am not really discussing any theories here. I am simply trying to communicate some harmonic resonance between Spinozism and Buddhism. This is not a theory, but an experience. When reading Buddhism it makes much sense through the lens of Spinoza. That is all. Spinoza, after-all, is considered an orientalist based on his method of reasoning and perhaps his conclusions.


Christianity and Physics are seen as sharing the same faulty epistemelogical structure.

I would agree from the surface but would love some more insight into this thought.

river_wind,

I don't accept reincarnation in its generally defined terms for the same reasons that I reject Gods, Soul and life after death. I do accept your matter/energy recycle view but the practice of burial mitigates that function to a great degree.

It is interesting though in that my wife and I had a magic act (40+ years ago) and I did some hypnosis. Over the years I have done perhaps a hlf dozen "Age Regression" sessions and what I did find interesting is that without fail each case (totally seperated by years, location and social times) the participants go through an exact process of becoming younger in their memories and emerged into another prior life at the older age just before having died and will regress once again in that purported life.

Each also went through a period of complete blank. No visions, no surrounding enviornment before emerging in the prior life scenario.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM

I don't accept reincarnation in its generally defined terms for the same reasons that I reject Gods, Soul and life after death. I do accept your matter/energy recycle view but the practice of burial mitigates that function to a great degree.

It is interesting though in that my wife and I had a magic act (40+ years ago) and I did some hypnosis. Over the years I have done perhaps a hlf dozen "Age Regression" sessions and what I did find interesting is that without fail each case (totally seperated by years, location and social times) the participants go through an exact process of becoming younger in their memories and emerged into another prior life at the older age just before having died and will regress once again in that purported life.

Each also went through a period of complete blank. No visions, no surrounding enviornment before emerging in the prior life scenario.

Hi Mac, here you are,

From what you find interesting from "Age Regression" hypnotic sessions, it is interesting to know that you don't believe in reincarnation.!

It would be very much appreciated if you clarify which one is true (i) your hypnotic findings OR (ii) your disbelief in reincarnations. Don't say both.:D

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I agree 100% with everything river-wind has said.
I also don't rule out the possibility that being "recycled" does "feel" like something and is in a sense an eternal afterlife.
I doubt it would be anything like any of the afterlifes people have imagined, but something more primal and subtle.
Kind of hard to explain to mere humans;)

Dr. Lou, I replied to a post regarding obesity being unattractive, but I want to reply here about it as well. If you can believe in being "recycled," can you also admit that it is possible for the body to be "spiritually" obese? What I mean is, perhaps, an obese person may have died of starvation in a past life or something. That, in addition to our lifestyle, may account for obesity that is hard to get rid of. It may be "spiritually" impossible.

everneo,


Hi Mac, here you are,

From what you find interesting from "Age Regression" hypnotic sessions, it is interesting to know that you don't believe in reincarnation.!

It would be very much appreciated if you clarify which one is true (i) your hypnotic findings OR (ii) your disbelief in reincarnations. Don't say both.


(i) I found it interesting but not conclusive to sway my disbelief in reincarnation perse. As odd as a string of coincidence that it might be (6) events coinciding to me is not conclusive. The 7th or others after that could just as easily alter the trend.

(ii)I hold a rather firm disbelief in reincarnation pending some extreme new evidence to the contrary.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Mojo

This is very long but I'll make it my last attempt at reaching an agreement. If you still think I'm a religious fanatic, elitist, dogmatic or just plain wrong I'll have to live with that. But this topic is too difficult to deal with by email.


Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
Metaphysisc comes from the mind and through the hand it is entered into a book to be transmitted to others. Isn't that obvious? [/B]
Therefore it comes to others from a book. You can't have it both ways.


The point is that we all have a ground of experience that is very similar because we all live in the same ultimate reality. We can use that common ground to elicit responses in other that are RELATIVELY similar to some other experience. I have never said that experience can be transmitted ABSOLUTELY, but to deny any transmission at all is ludicrous. There is a whole industry based on the transmission and dissemination of experience. It is called entertainment. Science is also based on this transmission and so are all forms of acedemia.[/B]
In a sense yes. But you cannot explain colour to blind man, or even pain to your doctor. This is ok in daily life, our descriptions help us get by well enough. But if ones metaphysics is based on experience it is ultimately incommunicable. This is quite evident from the failure of all non-dual writers to explain it, and why so few of them bother.

It follows that those who derive their metaphysics from their personal experience will have only very limited success in writing down rational descriptions of it, and will always run the risk of their descriptions being taken as a substitute for the knowledge itself, of the medium being mistaken for the message. Imo that is what you are accidently doing. (But see below)


[Knowledge spreads through the effective transmission of experience, whether it is experience from reality or second hand experience transmitted through a book.[/B]
Yes. But this is not true for certain knowledge. This is why Russell argues that true knowledge is identical with the knower, a very non-dual thing to say, and logically provable.


[I agree, but they can come to the same basic conclusions, nonetheless. And I am not talking about experience here, just logic. I am not saying that reading, pondering and finally understanding Spinoza is the equivalent absolute experience of achieving the same basic understanding through Buddhism. I am saying that they are compatible and that one can help with the understanding of the other.[/B]
They are not quite compatible but I accept that they are close in many important respects. However Spinoza reasoned his case from logic and presented a hypothesis. No amount of studying Spinoza will, on its own, give one a direct understanding of the truth or otherwise of non-duality, or achieve the certainty of truth that comes with Russell's oneness of knowledge and knower. Because of this their conclusions cannot be compared properly, and ultimately Buddhists would disagree with Spinoza.


[We simply are not communicating effectively. I am not really discussing any theories here. I am simply trying to communicate some harmonic resonance between Spinozism and Buddhism. This is not a theory, but an experience. When reading Buddhism it makes much sense through the lens of Spinoza. That is all. Spinoza, after-all, is considered an orientalist based on his method of reasoning and perhaps his conclusions.[/B]
I wouldn't disagree with that, as long as the above mentioned proviso is accepted, which is a crucial and insurmountable difference between them.


[I would agree from the surface but would love some more insight into this thought. [/B]
I don't know about insight but I can explain better what I meant.

In Christianity God is external to oneself. (Actually this isn't necessarily true, Christianity comes in many forms. However most Christians in these happy clappy days seem to believe that God is external to themselves). Similarly physics asserts that the real world is external to ourselves, and is posited on the distinction between observer and observed.

Buddhists assert that these distinctions are illusory, and that it is possible to know this for oneself. The cosmos is one thing and we are rooted in that one thing. Therefore to understand it it is not enough to stand apart from it as an observer, one must become one with it and see it from the other perspective also, inside out if you like. Thus the practice of meditation rather than observational physics or the study of ancient dogmas, and all the talk of internal and external arrows of attention.

Because of this epistemelogical reliance on personal experience, on becoming one with what is known, no theoretically reasoned metaphysic is in the same category of knowledge as the non-dual one. That isn't to say that there aren't all sorts of equivalences of description between it and other theories like Spinoza's. But it is not possible to know that theories (e.g. Spinoza's) are right or wrong because of the well known limitations on 'knowing', on what we can know with completely certainty.

Certain knowledge must come from direct experience, and cannot be communicated to others except very badly and to little purpose.

Because of this Christianity, and all similar theistic/deistic religions, and physics, and all similar approaches to knowledge, are inadequate to knowing the truth. They are forced at the last hurdle to rest on an axiomatic assumption, belief or undecidable quetsion.

I don't know if that seems clear or plausible or not, probably not. Still, these are the reasons that it is not correct to consider an understanding of Buddhist writings to be a substitute for knowing what the writings are about, the states of consciousness that students must experience for themselves before they can understand those writings fully. Until then students are not entitled, and certainly not encouraged, to believe a single word of the writings.

To avoid further misunderstandings - I am not asserting that Buddhist metaphysics is true (although I happen to think it is), and I am not belittling science, religion, or any other form of pursuit of knowledge. I am simply saying that in principle it is not possible to understand non-dual ontology/epistemology in the absence of some degree of experience of a non-dual state of consciousness. This makes Buddhism (and all similar introspective researches) fundamentally unlike physics and Christianity as a route to knowledge. Of course this is not to deny to Christians and physicists the same ability to explore these states as anyone else. There's no entry qualification, it's just a question of deciding to do it.

It also does not mean that one cannot talk about Buddhism or non-dual thinking without having had such an experience. But it should not be done on the assumption that it is equivalent to any logically reasoned metaphysical theory, or any religious belief system.

Originally posted by Canute
Therefore it comes to others from a book. You can't have it both ways.

I never said it can't be transmited through a book. The point I was trying to make in the first place is that metaphyics does not ORIGINATE from a book. Your absolutist reading forced the long process of finally coming to this simple reading.

You need to practive some flexibility in your reading. This means trying to see in what way to make sense of someone elses message. If through searching you still cannot make sense of it then question it. It seems that you just automatically arrive at the most incorrect reading possible in order to disagree. That is just my opinion.



In a sense yes. But you cannot explain colour to blind man, or even pain to your doctor.

Right, again I never said that the ABSOLUTE experience is transmitable. Another case of an absolutist reading of meaning that is not absolute.

In the world of modification and differentiation there is very little communication that can really benefit from an absolutist stance. This also should have been tought to you through Buddhism.

If you trust the transmitter of the message then you will seek ways in which to understand his message. If, however, you assume a priori that he is wrong then you will find the most incorrect reading possible and this you will consider a "flaw" in his argument rather than a flaw in your reading. The easiest way to find a flaw is to force an absolutist reading of a relativistic concept or message.


This is ok in daily life, our descriptions help us get by well enough. But if ones metaphysics is based on experience it is ultimately incommunicable.

Ultimately is ABSOLUTE. I am not talking absolutes, here, canute. When I talk about them you will know. Just assume from here on out that I am talking relativistically unless specified.


It follows that those who derive their metaphysics from their personal experience will have only very limited success in writing down rational descriptions of it, and will always run the risk of their descriptions being taken as a substitute for the knowledge itself, of the medium being mistaken for the message. Imo that is what you are accidently doing. (But see below)

You are mistaken, but thanks for the critique nonetheless.


Yes. But this is not true for certain knowledge. This is why Russell argues that true knowledge is identical with the knower, a very non-dual thing to say, and logically provable.

Ok, but I never said that ALL experience is transmittable. Another absolutist interpretive error.


They are not quite compatible but I accept that they are close in many important respects.

They are quite compatable. I have actually experienced this.


However Spinoza reasoned his case from logic and presented a hypothesis.

It is not a hypothesis, but a metaphysics. A hypothesis can be tested. Metaphysics is beyond the realm of the testable.


No amount of studying Spinoza will, on its own, give one a direct understanding of the truth or otherwise of non-duality, or achieve the certainty of truth that comes with Russell's oneness of knowledge and knower.

That is your opinion based on lack of personal experience studying Spinoza. I, however, have had the actual experience of studying, pondering extensively and finally understanding Spinoza. Since I can't transmit that kind of experience to someone who is inherently mistrusting then you can never know without experiencing it for yourself.

Again don't attempt an absolutist interpretation of the previous paragraph. I am not claiming that the understanding of Spinoza is the absolute equivalent of the experience of Buddhism, but that they have some commonality.


Because of this their conclusions cannot be compared properly, and ultimately Buddhists would disagree with Spinoza.

That is your opinion based in lack of experience with all buddhists. I guarantee that some Buddhists are more open-minded than that. I being one of them and the theosophists being another large group.


I wouldn't disagree with that, as long as the above mentioned proviso is accepted, which is a crucial and insurmountable difference between them.

Insurmountable only to you, canute, and your absolutist interpretation of differences.


I don't know about insight but I can explain better what I meant.

In Christianity God is external to oneself.

say no more!!! I know exactly what you mean with just this sentence. Science is objective.

;-)


Buddhists assert that these distinctions are illusory, and that it is possible to know this for oneself.

So does Spinoza...


The cosmos is one thing and we are rooted in that one thing.

as does Spinoza...


Therefore to understand it it is not enough to stand apart from it as an observer, one must become one with it and see it from the other perspective also, inside out if you like.

EXACTLY LIKE SPINOZA!!!


Thus the practice of meditation rather than observational physics or the study of ancient dogmas, and all the talk of internal and external arrows of attention.

Just like Spinoza except there are no rituals of meditation in recommended by Spinoza except to really take some time and ponder the words until you experience a proper understanding of their non-verbal meaning.


Because of this epistemelogical reliance on personal experience, on becoming one with what is known, no theoretically reasoned metaphysic is in the same category of knowledge as the non-dual one.

Of course, if your categories are absolute then every single system stands absolutely apart from all others and there is no common ground whatsoever.

It all depends on the absoluteness of your categories, canute. I would argue that Buddhism itself would suggest strongly that ALL categories are non-absolute and rooted in oneness. You have but to find the similarities.


That isn't to say that there aren't all sorts of equivalences of description between it and other theories like Spinoza's. But it is not possible to know that theories (e.g. Spinoza's) are right or wrong because of the well known limitations on 'knowing', on what we can know with completely certainty.

You are wrong about that canute. Buddhism is in the same epistemological category as Spinozism because both are metaphysics (i.e. beyond the realm of science).

All one would have to do is build a religion (in the best possible meaning of the term) of meditative practices around the teachings of Spinoza, and produce some derivatory works which mystified his core concepts and you would have yourself an equivalent to Buddhism in Spinozism.

WARNING: Do not attempt an absolutist reading of the previous paragraph. It may be hazardous to your understanding of the writers intent.


Certain knowledge must come from direct experience, and cannot be communicated to others except very badly and to little purpose.

Obviously....


Because of this Christianity, and all similar theistic/deistic religions, and physics, and all similar approaches to knowledge...

Which do not include the category of proper metaphysics...


are inadequate to knowing the truth. They are forced at the last hurdle to rest on an axiomatic assumption, belief or undecidable quetsion.

I don't quite agree here, canute. It is too absolutistic and it is based on ignorance of the potential for a science of the future to become based on metaphysics.

There is no system whatsoever that is absolutely provable by science. So Buddhism simply avoids this by being outside the realm of science. This does not mean that is proven to be true and is some better in this regard. It is just a different type of knowledge applicable to a different realm of experience.


I don't know if that seems clear or plausible or not, probably not. Still, these are the reasons that it is not correct to consider an understanding of Buddhist writings to be a substitute for knowing what the writings are about

To me, understanding something is equivalent to knowing what it is about. Both come from the inner experience of enlightenment.

This is a difference in definitions, canute, so don't attempt to understand it based on your definitions. That would obviously give you an incorrect interpretation.


...the states of consciousness that students must experience for themselves before they can understand those writings fully.

Have you ever tried to read Spinoza's "Ethics". You simply cannot read it and hope to truely understand it and most everyone who claims to understand it is wrong. Similar to Buddhism, there must be some serious contemplation in order to grasp the full significance and when you do, the truth is absolutely undeniable. Obviously I cannot transmit this experience to you except through analogy to what you have already experienced through Buddhism.


Until then students are not entitled, and certainly not encouraged, to believe a single word of the writings.

To me, belief does not enter into the picture. You simply feel the truth as it resonates so simply that it overpowers all other assertions of truth and all other truths become much more understandable through it.


To avoid further misunderstandings - I am not asserting that Buddhist metaphysics is true (although I happen to think it is), and I am not belittling science, religion, or any other form of pursuit of knowledge. I am simply saying that in principle it is not possible to understand non-dual ontology/epistemology in the absence of some degree of experience of a non-dual state of consciousness.

Consciousness is ultimately non-dual. We all experience that, but some of us do not realize it. Thus it can be experienced entirely outside of Buddhism and Buddhism is only one path to the realization of unity or non-duality.


This makes Buddhism (and all similar introspective researches)

such as Spinozism…


fundamentally unlike physics and Christianity as a route to knowledge. Of course this is not to deny to Christians and physicists the same ability to explore these states as anyone else. There's no entry qualification, it's just a question of deciding to do it.

Exactly, so you have no basis to assert that Spinoza is not also a viable route.


It also does not mean that one cannot talk about Buddhism or non-dual thinking without having had such an experience. But it should not be done on the assumption that it is equivalent to any logically reasoned metaphysical theory, or any religious belief system.

I have never said that the logic itself is equivalent to the experience of understanding the full implications that the logic can help one to achieve. That would obviously be absurd.

"I have finished everything I wished to explain concerning the power of the mind over the emotions and concerning its freedom. From what has been said we see what is the strength of the wise man and how much he surpasses the ignorant who is driven forward by lust alone. For the ignorant man is not only agitated by external causes in many ways and never enjoys true peace of soul, but lives also ignorant, as it were, both of God and of things, and as soon as he ceases to suffer ceases also to be.

"On the other hand, the wise man in so far as he is considered as such, is scarcely ever moved in his mind, but, being conscious by a certain external necessity of himself, of God, and of things, never ceases to be and always enjoys true peace of soul. If the way which, as I have shown, leads hither seem very difficult, it can nevertheless be found. It must indeed be difficult, since it is so seldom discovered, for if salvation lay ready to hand and could be discovered without great labour, how could it be possible that it should be neglected almost by everybody ? But all noble things are as difficult as they are rare." (spinoza)

;)

Originally posted by spookz

...
(spinoza)

;)

Thanks spookz. I enjoyed that.

:)

The structure of substance, attribute, and mode is the foundation of Spinoza's metaphysics. But there is another distinction that cuts across this, the difference between natura naturans and natura naturata. Natura is simply the Latin word "nature," and what Spinoza has done is add participle endings to that noun. Naturans is thus "nature" plus the active participle ending, which is "-ing" in English; so "Natura Naturans" is "Nature Naturing." Naturata is "nature" plus the past passive participle ending, which is "-ed" in English; so "Natura Naturata" is "Nature Natured." This gives us a contrast between what is creating and what is created. What is creating is the eternal existance and nature of God. What is created are the modifications that we see around us as transient things. This distinction cuts across the nature of the attributes themselves, since there is an eternal and unchanging aspect to each, i.e. space itself or consciousness itself, and a transient and changing aspect, i.e material objects in space or specific thoughts in consciousness. At the same time, there is nothing changing about substance as such or unchanging about the modes as such.

While for Spinoza all is God and all is Nature, the active/passive dualism enables us to restore, if we wish, something more like the traditional terms. Natura Naturans is the most God-like side of God, eternal, unchanging, and invisible, while Natura Naturata is the most Nature-like side of God, transient, changing, and visible. When Buddhism says that there is no God, it means that there is no substantive, eternal, unchanging, invisible, and creative side to reality. One of Spinoza's principal metaphysical categories, substance, is explicitly rejected by Buddhism. This is revealing, since it shows us how much there is to Spinoza's metaphysics and Spinoza's conception of God that would not have to be accepted, whether we are comparing it with Buddhism or, more importantly, with a reductionistic scientism.

spinoza (http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm)

??

Originally posted by spookz
When Buddhism says that there is no God, it means that there is no substantive, eternal, unchanging, invisible, and creative side to reality. One of Spinoza's principal metaphysical categories, substance, is explicitly rejected by Buddhism.

spinoza (http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm)

??

The bolded portion is an example of a materialistic reading of Spinoza. "Substance" or "substantive" in this case, automatically conotes something unintended in Spinoza's actual definition of substance. Substance, as Spinoza intends it, is simply the essence of existence. It is ONE, yet it has no boundaries, thus it is not one in an ordinary sense. It is infinite and continuous. The essence of causation. It is also entirely intangible. Only modifications (in Buddhism they are called differentiations or conditioned being) are tangible or perceptible.

Also, I think that in Buddhism there is an eternal, unchanging, invisible, and "creative" aspect to reality if properly understood, though there is no split between creator and creation in either system.

Originally posted by spookz
This gives us a contrast between what is creating and what is created. What is creating is the eternal existance and nature of God. What is created are the modifications that we see around us as transient things.

The contrast is only a matter of conceptualization for the purpose of discussion. The mind conceives of forms as if they were unchanging "creations" yet it is change itself that enables them to exist and to be stabilized.

Sir Mojo

I note Spookz's extracts repeat what I've been saying.

However as you clearly have no intention of ever reconsidering your fixed opinions or of making any attempt whatsoever to understand what I'm saying I'll retire.

Originally posted by Canute
Sir Mojo

I note Spookz's extracts repeat what I've been saying.

Of course you do. You have a goal of proving that Spinoza is incompatible with Buddhism. Your goal is not to understand what I could be talking about, but only to prove it wrong. Otherwise you would have listened to my response to the extracts of the materialist interpretation of Spinoza.

Spinoza is notoriously difficult to read and understand. I already mentioned that virtually every interpretation you read of him is flawed. This interpretation is another example.

Spookz found a materialist interpretation, which is quite common, and presented it to us. I demonstrated how this interpretation was flawed wrt Buddhism. You seem to have completely ignored my comments and singlemindedly focused on the flawed interpretation as if it were the only possible one. Do you need to be proven right so badly that you will ignore other possibilities?

The only way to study Spinoza properly then is to actually read him.

It is fascinating to see you close off all possibilities of a possible resonance between Spinozism and Buddhism and to focus only on illusory distinctions. There is no doubt that you can find a way to interpret Spinoza so as not to resonate with Buddhism. That is easy, just read any interpretation of him at random and chances are you will find an incorrect one IMHO. What is more difficult is to understand Spinoza so it resonates with Buddhism. The main problem is that our meanings of words have subtly been changing. Substance now connotes "matter" so as to inherently foster a materialist interpretation. This is a weak interpretation, however, because Spinoza shows that matter, as we know it, is entirely a consequence of modifications to substance or conditioned being. Also he directly says that matter results from an objective view of reality through the attribute of extension.

From http://members.tripod.com/~BDSweb/en/107.htm

“What is this underlying reality? Spinoza calls it substance, as literally that which stands beneath. Eight generations have fought voluminous battles over the meaning of this term; we must not be discouraged if we fail to resolve the matter in a paragraph. One error we should guard against: substance does not mean the constituent material of anything, as when we speak of wood as the substance of a chair. We approach Spinoza's use of the word when we speak of "the substance of his remarks." If we go back to the Scholastic philosophers from whom Spinoza took the term, we find that they used it as a translation of the Greek ousia, which is the present participle of einai, to be, and indicates the inner being or essence. Substance then is that which is … that which eternally and unchangeably is, and of which everything else must be a transient form or mode. “

…
“But further Spinoza identifies substance with nature and God. After the manner of the Scholastics, he conceives nature under a double aspect: as active and vital process, which Spinoza calls natura naturans— nature begetting, the élan vital and creative evolution of Bergson; and as the passive product of this process, natura naturata— nature begotten, the material and contents of nature, its woods and winds and waters, its hills and fields and myriad external forms. It is in the latter sense that he denies, and in the former sense that he affirms, the identity of nature and substance and God.”



Here is a page on Spinoza from a Buddhism site.

http://www.euronet.nl/~advaya/spinoza.htm

Perhaps this has some interpretations which resonate better with Buddhism?

and another

http://bystander.homestead.com/spinoza.html

...

http://www.hackwriters.com/Nirvana.htm

...

http://www.susqu.edu/su_press/bookjacketsinfo/Healing%20the%20Mind.htm

If there is such a thing as reincarnation I guess we'll get to watch sir mojo and canute argue for ever.

Originally posted by te jen
If there is such a thing as reincarnation I guess we'll get to watch sir mojo and canute argue for ever.

lol :D

Mojo

You continue to think that I'm knocking Spinoza's ideas and thus fail to see what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what Spinoza said. What matters is that a knowledge of Spinoza's ideas (or anyone else's) is in no way equivalent to a knowledge gained though Buddhist practice. Why I can't get this simple point across I don't know. I've never had to argue about it before.

Originally posted by Canute
Mojo

What matters is that a knowledge of Spinoza's ideas (or anyone else's) is in no way equivalent to a knowledge gained though Buddhist practice.

I agree with you, canute, that they are not ABSOLUTELY equivalent.

One reason you think I don't agree with you is that you keep equivocating between absolutism and relativism. One minute you say that yes they have many similarities and the next minute you say that they are in no way equivalent. This is contradictory. I have suggested that you abandon your absolutist stance, but you still continue to confuse the matter through jumping to absolute conclusions even though you know that they have similarities. You know that the world of distinction is not absolute so why make absolute distinctions? To say that some condition of being is in no way equivalent to another, will always be wrong, because there is always a deeper level of reality which unifies them.

I am not saying that knowledge gained through Spinoza is the EXACT ABSOLUTE equivalent to knowledge gained through Buddhism, but that they are complimentary. This I have actually experienced and shown directly that there are other Buddhists who feel the same way.

Furthermore, you speak out of ignorance of knowledge gained through Spinoza's system. You have never experienced what you are claiming to be "in no way equivalent to Buddhism", yet you are convinced of your absolutist stance.

Perhaps you still don't see what an absolutist stance really is?

BTW, I don't think you are knocking Spinoza's ideas, because you have never even really addressed them properly. You are simply making an assumption out of ignorance that there is some absolute inequivalence between the two systems. Perhaps it is the term "equivalence" that contains the absolute connotations? If so, then yes the two systems are not equivalent, but they do both arrive at the same basic truth, but through different means, thus the experience is inevitably of a different form though it has very many similarities.

You have to thread your way between the two absolute opposites to find the truth. This is basic Buddhism. The two opposites in this case are:

1: They are EXACTLY the same (i.e. equivalent).
2: They are ENTIRELY different.

Neither of us are saying either of these two things. Do you agree?

Sir Mojo, you think the finger pointing is the thing pointed at.

Originally posted by grover
Sir Mojo, you think the finger pointing is the thing pointed at.

No I don't, but thanks for trying.

I would rather just accept my inability to commicate and leave it there thanks. This isn't going anywhere. I don't even know what you mean by 'experiencing' Spinoza.

Bye for now.
Canute

Originally posted by Canute
This isn't going anywhere. I don't even know what you mean by 'experiencing' Spinoza.

Exactly that was my point. Thus your claim for absolute inequivalence is based in ignorance.

If you but admit your ignorance in this matter then you can simply say, "hmm that is an interesting possibility for some sort of complimentarity between the two systems of thought". Many other Buddhists who have also experienced Spinoza have felt the same resonance I am trying to communicate. Admitting ignorance when you are ignorant opens the doors of communication and learning.

We are ALL ignorant after-all.

lets put nothing on a pedestal

Originally posted by spookz
lets put nothing on a pedestal

good luck

:D

why thanks

:D

You are a perfect example of taking the finger pointing to be the thing pointed at.

The aim of buddhism is to have the experience (thing pointed at) of no-self which is totally ineffable.
Spinoza has a metaphysical system (pointing finger) with certain similiarities to buddhism.
The thing you can't seem to grasp is that the aim of buddhism is to experince directly what spinoza is using words to point at.

Originally posted by grover
You are a perfect example of taking the finger pointing to be the thing pointed at.

The aim of buddhism is to have the experience (thing pointed at) of no-self which is totally ineffable.
Spinoza has a metaphysical system (pointing finger) with certain similiarities to buddhism.
The thing you can't seem to grasp is that the aim of buddhism is to experince directly what spinoza is using words to point at.

Both Spinoza and Buddhism use words to point at the same thing. That is my point. The text of both systems is but the vehicle to the understanding. Both texts require serious meditation to truely understand. I am simply trying to show that the experience of understanding in either system is comparable.

Have you experienced understanding through Spinoza? Do you have any ground on which to compare the two?

"Both Spinoza and Buddhism use words to point at the same thing. That is my point."

But that is not the point being argued. The point being argued is that any similiarities between buddhism and spinoza are irrelevant in so far as spinoza is a philosopher that used logic to create a philospohical system which has certain similiarities to buddhism. Buddhism, on the other hand, is a set of practices which leads the practitioner to an enlightment experience which logic can not apprehend and words can not describe. The experience in either system is not comparable. Spinoza requires reading and logical analysis, buddhism requires morality and meditation (which can be described a practice of concentration with the aim of eliminating discursive thought, which, it might be added is required to understand spinoza). READING Spinoza is not the same as PRACTICING Buddhism so quit trying to convince yourself it is.

Originally posted by grover
"Both Spinoza and Buddhism use words to point at the same thing. That is my point."

But that is not the point being argued.

There are many points being argued and as an arguer I know what points I was arguing, thanks.


The point being argued is that any similiarities between buddhism and spinoza are irrelevant in so far as spinoza is a philosopher that used logic to create a philospohical system which has certain similiarities to buddhism.

That is a categorical elitism. You think the similarities are irrelevant, but my point is simply that the similarities exist.


Buddhism, on the other hand, is a set of practices which leads the practitioner to an enlightment experience which logic can not apprehend and words can not describe.

Spinozism does the same thing without a prescribed set of practices, but the experience is necessarily different to an extent.

Logic does not comprehend anything and it is simply a feature of Buddhism that they ended up at a more superficial level with their words. Both systems use words to point beyond the words to the same ultimate reality.


The experience in either system is not comparable.

EVERYTHING is comparable.


Spinoza requires reading and logical analysis, buddhism requires morality and meditation

Both systems require reading and logical analysis and morality and meditation. Do you really think Buddhism is free of logic? Then burn all your Buddhist books! You don't need logic and it only gets in the way!!!


(which can be described a practice of concentration with the aim of eliminating discursive thought, which, it might be added is required to understand spinoza).

You are correct as that practice is certainly different from Spinoza, but that is not the aspect of Buddhism that concerns me.

Again, I never said that the systems were ABSOLUTELY identical.


READING Spinoza is not the same as PRACTICING Buddhism so quit trying to convince yourself it is. [/B]

I have repeatedly said that it is NOT the same thing as practicing Buddhism. Try reading more carefully next time.

You have made the same mistake that canute keeps making. You are forcing an absolutist interpretation of what I am saying. I keep saying that they have similarities but are NOT identical and both of you keep assuming that I think they are identical. They have OBVIOUS differences which you pointed out.

Grover - good luck. You might like this, which lies behind what you said so clearly.

"So long as the idea of personal doership persists together with a self-identification as a seperate entity, apperception of the functioning element is not possible. Whatever is thought and said by such an entity would necessarily be polluted, and therefore cannot have any metaphysical import, significance or relevance."

Wu Wu Wei from Ramesh Balsekar.

Good quote Canute. I'm giving up too...it's pointless.

Originally posted by Canute
You might like this, which lies behind what you said so clearly.
…

Great quote, canute. How about this one:

" . . . All the teaching of cosmic and cyclic evolution is designed to help the individual to insert himself or herself into the larger perspective. When more and more individuals come to see that they cannot separate their own individual growth from universal enlightenment, they will become more and more selfless and relaxed, cheerfully shedding the unnecessary weight of excessive concern for the personality. In the archetypal instruction of The Voice of the Silence:

Thou shalt not separate thy being from BEING, and the rest, but merge the Ocean in the drop, the drop within the Ocean. So shalt thou be in full accord with all that lives; bear love to men as though they were thy brother-pupils, disciples of one Teacher, the sons of one sweet mother. Of teachers there are many; the MASTER-SOUL is one, Alaya, the Universal Soul. Live in that MASTER as ITS ray in thee. Live in thy fellows as they live in IT."

see http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/Involution.htm



Good luck to all of you and thanks for the discussion!

In Yogacara theory everything is "mind only" and this consciousness is divided into eight sections. The principal part of consciousness is the alaya or "storehouse consciousness" which is the basis of the seven other consciousnesses. All eight comprise the mind dharmas and the fifty dharmas that interact with the mind.

The alaya consciousness is also known as the "repository of impressions." From the alaya arise all of our ideas of self, ego, and their respective functions in the external world. If the alaya is imagined as a vast ocean, then the seven other consciousness are waves on its surface. The seven are not separate from the eighth, nor do they disturb the stillness of its depths; all eight are essentially one.

The eighth consciousness is "beyond the dualisms of subject and object, or existence and non-existence," so it does not have any purposive activity and is unaware of objects. Since it does not make distinctions, and is neither good or bad, the eighth consciousness is said to have the state of equanimity.

The alaya consciousness is the "karmic" storehouse which contains seeds generated by our unenlightened actions. Although it does not create karma, the alaya functions as the subject of retribution for past intentional activities. The process of ripening of seeds, thinking, and perception of objects is all subjective and "neither the process nor its results have any real existence." Because of the "...karmic activity of the seven consciousnesses" the alaya continues developing karmic seeds which, in their fruition, influence future attachments and activities via the three realms and the nine grounds .

Final freedom from the samsaric process occurs when all "the defiled seeds are replaced by pure seeds created by pure deeds." The alaya also contains "intrinsically pure seeds" which are the source of our motivation towards enlightenment. Upon enlightenment the eighth consciousness becomes empty of ripening seeds and is transformed into the Great Mirror wisdom.

The alaya has two divisions; the perceiving (the subject) and the perceived (the object). The former is linked to the seventh consciousness , while the latter is linked to the sixth consciousness and the five perceptual consciousnesses. When the perceived division is transformed during enlightenment it becomes subsequently-attained wisdom

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26421

Wow. Thanks for that, and the link. It's a beautifully organised system of explanation. Isn't the language great.

Always enjoy your posts. ;)

Wow. Thanks for that, and the link. It's a beautifully organised system of explanation. Isn't the language great.

Always enjoy your posts. ;)

Spookz, thanks for the above.


Canute, Mojo, when discussing Budhism and metaphysics, we need to remember the connections between hinduism and buddism. Just as Christ, the center of christiandom, grew up Jewish, The man who has become known as Buddha grew up Hindu. Much of the metaphysical sections of modern buddhism are of a Hindu source. This includes karma, dharma, shamadhi, reincarnation, self-study, enlightenment, seperation from self, etc.

When you argue anything outside of the middle path, you are most likely no longer arguing Buddhism, but hinduism. What Spookz posted above is technically Hindu, though it could be from a Buddist source/perspective.

Buddha himself, before his death told his followers to specifically mind not only what he had told them, but also what he had not told them. One of the items he references as something he had not told them was what happens after death of the body. The buddist ideals of re-incarnation do not come from Buddha himself, but from his hindu background. In effect, that section of the "buddist" metaphysics actually did come from "books" (I'm using the word books here to mean any method of transfering information between people - in this case the books are a metaphore for verbal and non-verbal communication). It came from people before Buddha, and not from Buddha himself.


All of the above is from my readings and my self-study over the past years. I could be wrong. This is what I have seen and understood.

te Jen, thank you also for your additions to this topic. :)

You're probably right about most of that. But, speaking personally, I regard such ideas as useful or not, consistent or not, in accord with my experience or not, and so on. Where or when they came from doesn't concern me much.

I felt that the 'eight consciousnesses' were eight useful aspects of consciousness to consider. Whether there actually are eight, (or nine and three-quarters come to that) I have no idea, but I suspect not.

However that doesn't mean that there is no truth in the idea, or nothing useful to be learnt from it. (Like thinking of an atom as a solar system for instance).

I do agree that separating out all the different doctrines that overlap in content or in historical sequence from Buddhism is impossible. Nearly all mystical traditions seem to agree about the basics, and most of those basic ideas seem to predate recorded history.

In fact I've spent a few years of spare time looking for any fact or logical deduction that contradicts Buddhist metaphysical principles, whether from the religions, the sciences or philosophy. As far as I can tell they all agree.

Sorry, just waffling.

IMO, you waffle wisely. :D

I didn't read this thread completely but I would like to sound off a little. I did read that there is thought about oneness. Here is a theory.....God is. Now you can substitute your title, name, or whatever for God. I just use the name God for simplicities sake. God is....That is all there is. "We" each are a bit and piece of what is, yet we are all of what is God. There is no me and you in truth because all that is, is God. The major problem in our conciousness arises when we are in such a state that we don't realize who and what we really are. Do the animals, trees, rocks, stars and planets ever worry about who they are or where they are going after they "die"? No. Heaven, hell, reincarnation or even death; what's the difference? We are all one and the one is God. When we can realize who and what we are, we will have self-realization, nirvana, heaven or whatever else you want to call it. Because truth is we already have it but are ignorant of what "IT" is.

Back in October I advanced the conjecture that billions of human minds interacting with each other could produce a "meta-consciousness" analogous to the consciousness that unaruguably (I hope) is produced by the interaction of billions of brain cells. Any reaction to this?

I think such speculation is fruitless, however, without a strategy for detecting such metaconsciousness in the laboratory, so to speak. Can anyone think of one?

Why do you restrict your 'meta-consciousness' to human consciousness? And how could you possibly prove it exists except outside the laboratory? Who would do the experiment? Consciousness cannot be detected outside of oneself, so inside of oneself is where such experiments have to be conducted.