Towards a rational faith and religion

[Demonslayer]

It's not about the brain (mind), it's about the consciousness (and beyond). Additional senses exist in the higher realms of consciousness, not in the brain.

Do you believe consciousness can exist without the brain/mind?

 

[buddhist]

That's the great divide in most of these type of discussions. Those who believe other realms to be 'real' and those who don't. I believe they are 'real' from my study of various types of paranormal phenomena and the teachings of eastern spiritual masters who I have come to respect as knowing beyond the 'seen' i.e. seers.

I agree that they are very real; although "science" is valuable in helping us to learn about the universe around us, it is limited because it largely depends on physical tools to verify measurements, but physical tools cannot measure things which can only be perceived with non-physical senses.

 

[George-ananda]

Perhaps, but the Buddha described the ultimate unchanging (nibbana) as the ultimate bliss. Touching the unchanging in jhana is blissful, for me at least, in my direct experience.

I understand that but perhaps you are reaching the unchanging 'relative to us' in my previous post.

 

[buddhist]

Could you say what your definition of "early Buddhism" is?

I consider "early Buddhism" to be what was authentically taught by the historical Buddha, in the earliest Nikayas. Basically, it teaches "self-effort" and "self-development", as opposed to the "belief and trust in a savior Buddha/bodhisattva" taught in later Buddhism.

 

[buddhist]

Do you believe consciousness can exist without the brain/mind?

Yes; in jhana, I have experienced periods of consciousness where my consciousness can "watch" my brain/mind produce thoughts and emotions, without identifying with them. On more rare occasions, I've also perceived how the brain/mind quiets down until it produces no thoughts or emotions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you believe in the law of cause and effect?

Short answer: No, I do not.



Long answer:

I believe that this specific descriptor has been sorely abused, even right here in these forums, and should be avoided for a while so that misunderstandings are not created.

Specifically, I have seen it raised in an attempt to claim that existence itself must have a (transcendental) creator. I do not see why, nor how that would even be a true or useful answer.

Besides, isn't it a bit contradictory to want to demonstrate a transcendental being as a consequence of the law that he is not subject to? That strikes me as rather pointless.

If anything, it would demonstrate that it is not possible to know logically whether there is a creator of existence itself. Personally, I don't think it goes even that far.



I also believe that in reality causes and effects tend to be far more complex than we give them credit for. Most effects are the result of a whole set of causes, working with and against each other in complex arrangements. From a religious perspective, much of the role of wisdom is learning to get a grip of the flow of those sets of causes and working with them.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I consider "early Buddhism" to be what was authentically taught by the historical Buddha, in the earliest Nikayas. Basically, it teaches "self-effort" and "self-development", as opposed to the "belief and trust in a savior Buddha/bodhisattva" taught in later Buddhism.

Theravada then?

 

[buddhist]

I understand that but perhaps you are reaching the unchanging 'relative to us' in my previous post.

Maybe so, I am not 100% sure for myself yet. Istill have much to master in jhana.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes; in jhana, I have experienced periods of consciousness where my consciousness can "watch" my brain/mind produce thoughts and emotions, without identifying with them. On more rare occasions, I've also perceived how the brain/mind quiets down until it produces no thoughts or emotions.

That's samatha, not jhana.

 

[Demonslayer]

I agree that they are very real; although "science" is valuable in helping us to learn about the universe around us, it is limited because it largely depends on physical tools to verify measurements, but physical tools cannot measure things which can only be perceived with non-physical senses.

But you're saying through meditation/Buddhist practices these 'other realms' can be revealed yes?

That's all science is, observing behaviors and results and trying to learn real cause and effect. If we could reveal these other realms through the methods you describe, by now there would be a demonstrable way to do that. A skeptic could submit to training, commit to the meditation and methods required to view these other realms, learn them, and witness the other realms.

As it is that hasn't happened. The only people who claim to see these other realms are super fundamentalist Buddhists who say they see them. Or not "see" I guess because you're saying "non-physical senses." What is a non-physical sense?

 

[George-ananda]

It is my opinion that, to the point of the original post, rational thought and reasoning and scientific exploration will never find evidence of ghosts because supernatural things are not real.

Here again is an example of the fundamental disagreement. I believe there are realms of matter and energy not detectible by physical senses and instruments that do include elements we commonly now term 'supernatural'.

 

[George-ananda]

Maybe so, I am not 100% sure for myself yet. Istill have much to master in jhana.

That makes two of us

 

[buddhist]

... Most effects are the result of a whole set of causes, working with and against each other in complex arrangements. From a religious perspective, much of the role of wisdom is learning to get a grip of the flow of those sets of causes and working with them.

I agree that there are often many causes for any effect, I was simplifying it to a knowledge of a law that effects are always caused (whether by one cause or many causes).

 

[buddhist]

That's samatha, not jhana.

It is both. Samatha describes the practice, jhana describes the state achieved.

 

[buddhist]

But you're saying through meditation/Buddhist practices these 'other realms' can be revealed yes?

Absolutely.

That's all science is, observing behaviors and results and trying to learn real cause and effect. If we could reveal these other realms through the methods you describe, by now there would be a demonstrable way to do that. A skeptic could submit to training, commit to the meditation and methods required to view these other realms, learn them, and witness the other realms.

Absolutely. I was also a skeptic until I achieved some experience with these realms.

As it is that hasn't happened. The only people who claim to see these other realms are super fundamentalist Buddhists who say they see them. Or not "see" I guess because you're saying "non-physical senses." What is a non-physical sense?

Not only Buddhists, but also others. A non-physical sense is something that is not the five senses: sight, sound, touch, taste, smell.

If, hypothetically, 99% of the population of the world had no sense of smell, how would the 1% who does possess that sense adequately describe it to the 99% who does not?

 

[George-ananda]

That's all science is, observing behaviors and results and trying to learn real cause and effect. If we could reveal these other realms through the methods you describe, by now there would be a demonstrable way to do that. A skeptic could submit to training, commit to the meditation and methods required to view these other realms, learn them, and witness the other realms.

In fact that is what occurs in eastern traditions. Methods are given to transcend the senses and the mind. But it is a very lengthy and difficult practice to be able to reach these states consistently. And when one succeeds, what can they show that science can work with?

 

[buddhist]

Theravada then?

No. There are many overlapping elements and traits between early Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism, but they are not one and the same.

 

[Demonslayer]

Here again is an example of the fundamental disagreement. I believe there are realms of matter and energy not detectible by physical senses and instruments that do include elements we commonly now term 'supernatural'.

Except believers in ghosts and demons and those things say they see them all the time. Even in this thread you guys are suggesting through meditation and certain practices (forgive my ignorance of the specifics of Buddhism) other realms can be 'revealed.'

On the one hand people are saying we will never be able to detect things like ghosts, and on the other hand believers constantly say they saw (or 'felt'...another "physical sense") ghosts.

Which is it? Can these things be detected, and thus are within the realm of possible discovery? Or can they not be detected and everyone who claims they saw a ghost/demon/other realm/God's influence, lying?

 

[Demonslayer]

Methods are given to transcend the senses and the mind. But it is a very lengthy and difficult practice to be able to reach these states consistently. And when one succeeds, what can they show that science can work with?

They should be able to teach others how to do it, even if it's hard. Otherwise how can we be sure these people aren't just making stuff up?

"Through years of X, Y and Z I was able to reach a state where I can see other realms"
"OK, show me how"
"Um...you're...you can't"
"Why?"
"OHM...*go away please*"

 

[buddhist]

They should be able to teach others how to do it, even if it's hard. Otherwise how can we be sure these people aren't just making stuff up?

The methods for progressive training are given, for example, in the texts of early Buddhism.