Towards a rational faith and religion

[George-ananda]

Can these things be detected, and thus are within the realm of possible discovery?

They are within the realm of possible discovery but not by our physical senses or current physical instruments (perhaps someday). At this time man's super-physical senses can sense and detect where no physical devices can detect.

 

[paarsurrey]

Towards a rational faith and religion

The more appropriate would be "towards a truthful faith and religion". The truthful one has to be a rational faith or religion, it cannot be otherwise. Am I right? Please
Regards

 

[Demonslayer]

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

So like, imagination? Does that count? I mean even in dreams we see, hear, feel, etc. I still can't grasp what a "non-physical sense" is.

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?

It would be easy. There would be a consensus and you'd be able to show people you could smell things.

Put two identical paper bags in front of someone, fill one with flowers and one with rotting fish. Show the 99% that you can consistently pick out the one with the rotting fish. They might be amazed at first, but you could do it every time. You could do it easily, without a second thought, in double-blind studies, and you'd never miss even once. You could wiggle your nose while you do it, and explain to the 99% that by breathing in through your nose you can detect the differences in things based on microscopic bits of them that drift into the air.

Easy. No one can do that with ghosts, other realms or any of that. So how can we tell "real" other-worldly detection from the large percentage of charlatans that are sure to exist?

 

[George-ananda]

They should be able to teach others how to do it, even if it's hard.

They do this teaching. Swami Yogananda as one of many examples teaches the Science of Self-Realization

"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*"

The untruth in the above conversation is that advanced Yogic teachers will tell you 'how'.

 

[Demonslayer]

At this time man's super-physical senses can sense and detect where no physical devices can detect.

Ah ha! So now these senses are super-physical not non-physical.

I'm still confused as to what these senses are. I just described smell to 99% of people who can't smell, and showed how we could prove smell to non-smellers. Can anyone do the same for these super or non physical senses?

 

[buddhist]

Towards a rational faith and religion

The more appropriate would be "towards a truthful faith and religion". The truthful one has to be a rational faith or religion, it cannot be otherwise. Am I right? Please
Regards

I agree, a true religion has to conform with rationality and reality.

 

[buddhist]

So like, imagination? Does that count? I mean even in dreams we see, hear, feel, etc. I still can't grasp what a "non-physical sense" is.

It would be easy. There would be a consensus and you'd be able to show people you could smell things.

Put two identical paper bags in front of someone, fill one with flowers and one with rotting fish. Show the 99% that you can consistently pick out the one with the rotting fish. They might be amazed at first, but you could do it every time. You could do it easily, without a second thought, in double-blind studies, and you'd never miss even once. You could wiggle your nose while you do it, and explain to the 99% that by breathing in through your nose you can detect the differences in things based on microscopic bits of them that drift into the air.

Easy. No one can do that with ghosts, other realms or any of that. So how can we tell "real" other-worldly detection from the large percentage of charlatans that are sure to exist?

Have you ever asked yourself why there is a lack of scholastic studies into this issue? What would proving the existence of these senses and realms accomplish, or destroy, in today's society?

I know directly for myself that some of these senses indeed exist. However, as the Buddha taught, the presence of these senses or realms is irrelevant to the main goal - that of the cessation of suffering. Activation of such senses, and perception and mastery of other realms are "side effects" on the road to nibbana.

 

[George-ananda]

Ah ha! So now these senses are super-physical not non-physical.

That's really word-play differences. The sense are of subtle matter beyond what we are familiar with and call the physical plane. You can call that non-physical or super-physical as the terms are not precise.

I'm still confused as to what these senses are.

In the teachings I have come to respect; man is composed of interpenetrating bodies physical/etheric/astral/mental. Each of these bodies have senses of their own. Most men during physical consciousness experience only through the five physical senses. More psychically gifted people can receive impressions through the higher super-physical senses.

 

[buddhist]

In the teachings I have come to respect; man is composed of interpenetrating bodies physical/etheric/astral/mental. Each of these bodies have senses of their own. Most men during physical consciousness experience only through the five physical senses. More psychically gifted people can receive impressions through the higher non-physical senses.

Well said!

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Towards a rational faith and religion
The more appropriate would be "towards a truthful faith and religion". The truthful one has to be a rational faith or religion, it cannot be otherwise. Am I right? Please
Regards

I agree, a true religion has to conform with rationality and reality.

We don't need necessarily to invent a new faith or religion to be rational or truthful. That might depict our bias to the rich past of the humanity. Maybe we already have a/the truthful religion but we failed to discern that it is most rational also. Our failure cannot make it untruthful or irrational necessarily. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Twilight Hue]

In early Buddhism, it is considered possible, through practice of the Dhamma, to see reality as it is. Therefore, "rationality" exists as a continuum - the higher progress one achieves in spiritual mastery, the more "rational" one becomes.

As for true religion, I see it as reality itself; it is neither rational nor non-rational - it simply is what it is. "Dhamma" in Buddhism, often popularly understood as "the Buddha's religion", is IMO better understood as "all that which is real and true". So, to understand and conform oneself to the various laws of reality is to follow the Dhamma.

There's a very good reason for stilling the mind and becoming very quiet. By doing so, reality has a way of revealing much that was really never noticed before.

I think early Buddhism was far less complicated than what it's made out as today without having so much mindplay placed foremost by which reality is interpreted, rather than on it's direct pristine terms.

 

[buddhist]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Towards a rational faith and religion
The more appropriate would be "towards a truthful faith and religion". The truthful one has to be a rational faith or religion, it cannot be otherwise. Am I right? Please
Regards

We don't need necessarily to invent a new faith or religion to be rational or truthful. That might depict our bias to the rich past of the humanity. Maybe we already have a/the truthful religion but we failed to discern that it is most rational also. Our failure cannot make it untruthful or irrational necessarily. Right? Please
Regards

Reality itself is the true religion. Our failures do not change the nature of reality.

 

[buddhist]

There's a very good reason for stilling the mind and becoming very quiet. By doing so, reality has a way of revealing much that was really never noticed before.

I think early Buddhism was far less complicated than what it's made out as today without having so much mindplay placed foremost by which reality is interpreted, rather than on it's direct pristine terms.

I think so too; early Buddhism is straight and to the point, with direct methods of self-training which made perfect sense to me, and has helped me greatly in terms of understanding reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

Towards a rational faith and religion

The more appropriate would be "towards a truthful faith and religion". The truthful one has to be a rational faith or religion, it cannot be otherwise. Am I right? Please
Regards

We have no means of knowing.

 

[Kartari]

Hi buddhist,

...an infinite Creator...

Apologies for getting off-topic. If you could let me know where you got the idea of a Creator from? Is this a part of the Buddhist tradition you ascribe to, or is it something you carry over from another tradition(s)? I ask because, to my knowledge, there is no Creator deity in early Buddhism, yet you claim "Early Buddhism" as your religion. Thanks.

 

[buddhist]

Hi buddhist,

Apologies for getting off-topic. If you could let me know where you got the idea of a Creator from? Is this a part of the Buddhist tradition you ascribe to, or is it something you carry over from another tradition(s)? I ask because, to my knowledge, there is no Creator deity in early Buddhism, yet you claim "Early Buddhism" as your religion. Thanks.

Actually, the Buddha neither denied nor confirmed the existence of "the Creator", but IMO he hinted at creation's nature by confirming that we - each of us, as individuals - create our own universe and reality from the formations of our own mind and consciousness.

So, in terms of my OP, I use "Creator" in the loose sense of "causes", but not as an independent intelligence or independent deity as such a term is understood in most religions. Instead, IMO, we are all collectively "the Creator", creating things moment by moment with our conscious minds, our creations merging with other creators' creations to create an unending mesh of which we may call "Creation". I would compare it to a sheet of fabric composed of innumerable threads, (threads of creative energies) emanating from various (and endless) "knots" (individual creators) in the fabric, "threads" meshing with "threads" created by other creators to create the whole of samsaric reality.

Ultimately, the nature or identity of the "Creator(s)" doesn't matter, as the Buddha taught. What matters is suffering, the nature of suffering, and the ending of suffering ... by unraveling our individual "knot" in the fabric of existence, we unravel all of samsaric existence and suffering.

Sorry if it's confusing

 

[paarsurrey]

Reality itself is the true religion. Our failures do not change the nature of reality.

Exactly. Truth always existed and was always rational, it cannot be made more rational. We have to make ourselves in harmony with it. Right? Please
Regards

 

[buddhist]

Exactly. Truth always existed and was always rational, it cannot be made more rational. We have to make ourselves in harmony with it. Right? Please
Regards

Yes, my reference to a "rational faith" is in to engender a more rational response in men and women's perception of faith.

 

[Kartari]

Hi buddhist,

Actually, the Buddha neither denied nor confirmed the existence of "the Creator", but IMO he hinted at creation's nature by confirming that we - each of us, as individuals - create our own universe and reality from the formations of our own mind and consciousness.

So, in terms of my OP, I use "Creator" in the loose sense of "causes", but not as an independent intelligence or independent deity as such a term is understood in most religions. Instead, IMO, we are all collectively "the Creator", creating things moment by moment with our conscious minds, our creations merging with other creators' creations to create an unending mesh of which we may call "Creation". I would compare it to a sheet of fabric composed of innumerable threads, (threads of creative energies) emanating from various (and endless) "knots" (individual creators) in the fabric, "threads" meshing with "threads" created by other creators to create the whole of samsaric reality.

Ultimately, the nature or identity of the "Creator(s)" doesn't matter, as the Buddha taught. What matters is suffering, the nature of suffering, and the ending of suffering ... by unraveling our individual "knot" in the fabric of existence, we unravel all of samsaric existence and suffering.

Sorry if it's confusing

It is true that the Buddha did not speak either way about a Creator deity. And I agree, he certainly avoided metaphysical discussion in order to help people focus on what truly matters: the cessation of dissatisfaction or suffering. I do see what you are getting at now. Thanks for explaining.

For me personally, though, the term Creator is too loaded to be meaningful. I prefer to think of my practice more directly, in terms of mind, awareness, wisdom, and compassion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think so too; early Buddhism is straight and to the point, with direct methods of self-training which made perfect sense to me, and has helped me greatly in terms of understanding reality.

Indeed.

I take one of the first kensho experiences occurs during the first time one's fanny hits the cushion and starts counting breaths. The reality concerning one's mind reveals itself.

I still remember musing on how incredibly noisy my mind was, and figured the reason why I couldn't concentrate well was because of all that racket going on!

Explained a fair portion of my anxiety.

Here I was blaming it all on drinking bad coffee! =0)