Jump to content

VincentRJ

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    2,353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by VincentRJ

  1. I am limited by words.

    The Buddha was teaching of two states.

    That which is conditioned and imperment and that which is permanent and unconditioned.

    Nothing to do with class.

    The description of Citta covers it.

    It's something that you don't have to accept or belief but revolves around that 4 Noble Truths.

    In your posts you often refer to the kalama sutta, in which you are invited to investigate for yourself.

    This is what the Buddha was asking you to investigate.

    I am investigating it, Rocky, and thinking about it, in accordance with the advice of the Kalama Sutta.
    The two states your refer to, conditioned and impermanent, and permanent an unconditioned, seem like the duality of 'either/or'. This is not how I understand reality. Rather, there's a continuum of different states, not just two. It's too simplistic to describe something as 'either hot or cold'.

    This is everyones crossroad.

    We can stop here and proceed no further, or accept that the Buddha went before us and is recommending a way.

    No-one can stop. Everything is in a state of change. This is where modern science is in agreement with Buddhism.The Buddha and his recommendations went before us, no dispute about that. But his environment and cultural circumstances were very different to ours.
    We should not ignore that fact.
    Let's accept only what is meaningful in Buddhist teachings, and what we can relate to, and what makes sense, in accordance with the Kalama Sutta.
  2. I am limited by words.

    The Buddha was teaching of two states.

    That which is conditioned and imperment and that which is permanent and unconditioned.

    Nothing to do with class.

    The description of Citta covers it.

    It's something that you don't have to accept or belief but revolves around that 4 Noble Truths.

    In your posts you often refer to the kalama sutta, in which you are invited to investigate for yourself.

    This is what the Buddha was asking you to investigate.

    I am investigating it, Rocky, and thinking about it, in accordance with the advice of the Kalama Sutta.
    The two states your refer to, conditioned and impermanent, and permanent an unconditioned, seem like the duality of 'either/or'. This is not how I understand reality. Rather, there's a continuum of different states, not just two. It's too simplistic to describe something as 'either hot or cold'.
  3. The Buddha replied:

    In the iikincanfliiyatana jhana (absorption in the realm of nothingness), the consciousness of the act of consciousness disappeared but that of nothingness appeared instead.

    Finally, in the sanfliivedayitanirodha, which is the last level of jhana, the consciousness of nothingness also disappeared, and no new consciousness appeared.

    Therefore, the complete cessation of consciousness existed continually in such a state.

    During the time, we could not say that there was consciousness, for the person has no feeling at all.

    But we could neither say that there was no consciousness, for the person could be conscious again after he came out of the jhana.

    Neither could he be declared dead ~or could he be declared not dead.

    This is the complete cessatIon of sannii or consciousness which could be caused to occur by human's control, power or action.

    What the Buddha was teaching is that there are levels of existence without consciousness, Nibanna being the ultimate state.

    Al this is suggesting that there is a state beyond consciousness, and that consciousness, and self, are illusory.

    Rocky,
    Thanks for your detailed quotes, but I have to confess that I sometimes struggle with these concepts of nothingness, from a logical and linguistic aspect. Nothingness, by definition, cannot 'appear'. Such wording, perhaps as a result of the translation, is creating the impression that 'nothing' is 'something'.
    As for, 'complete cessation of consciousness', we have a very simple word for that, 'unconscious', which raises the question, why would anyone want to strive to become unconscious?
    An explanation that makes sense to me, is for reasons of power and control over oneself and one's own mind. To have such control over one's mind, as to be able to put oneself into a state of anaesthesia without the use of drugs or anaesthetics, is remarkable.
    However, I'm not suggesting that achieving such states of unconsciousness through long practice, is no different from taking an anaesthetic, or sleeping. I can imagine that the complete rest from the constant activity of the mind, achieved without the use of drugs, and a more complete rest than anything achieved even during the best sleep, could result in a completely new and liberating experience.
    Even when we are asleep, and are not dreaming, or are under the effects of an anaesthetic, the mind is still active to a degree, known as 'slow-wave' activity.

    I'm quoting from passages attributed to the Buddha and an Arahant, Ven Maha Boowa as well as others.

    It has been taught that the Self or Ego is a construct and illusory, as is its consciousness.

    It is supported by a flow of events contact, craving, clinging, becoming, re Birth, dissatisfaction, and death.

    Each string of events occur as a still frame in a movie, quickly moving to the next, that, as moving stills bring life to a movie, each arsing and passing give the illusion of consciousness, and a Self which we then attach to.

    The illusory consciousness you describe is not all that there is.

    Ven Maha Booha calls it "Citta"

    Quote:

    • The Citta is the minds essential knowing nature, the fundamental knowing that underlies all sentient beings.
    • When associated with a physical body, it is referred to as "mind" or 'heart".
    • Being corrupted by the defiling influence of fundamental ignorance (Avijja), its currents flow out to manifest as feelings (Vedana), memory (Sanna), thoughts (Sankhara), and consciousness (Vinnaoa).
    • Thus the Citta is embroiled in a web of self deception.
    • It is deceived about its own true nature.
    • The true nature of the Citta is that it simply "knows".
    • There is no subject, no object, no duality, it simply knows.
    • The Citta does not arise or pass away, it is never born and never dies.
    • Normally the "knowing nature" of Citta is timeless and boundless, and radiant, but this true nature is obscured by defilements (Kilisa) within it.
    • Through the power of fundamental ignorance, a focal point of the "knower" is created from which that knowing nature views the world outside.
    • The establishment of of that false centre creates a "self" from whose perspective consciousness flows out to perceive the duality of the 'knower" & the "known".
    • Thus the Citta becomes entangled with things that are born, become ill, grow old, and die, and therefore, deeply involved in suffering.

    As you can see, the consciousness you refer to is illusory.

    Awakening uncovers "knowing".

    It's still not clear, Rocky. I can understand that many of our interpretations of sensory perceptions might be illusory in the sense of being incorrect to various degrees, either completely incorrect or partially incorrect.
    TRD, who used to post here, (what's happened to him? Hope he's all right) gave the obvious example of a person who sees a coil of rope on the ground, and immediately jumps to the erroneous conclusion that it is a snake, probably as a result of a fear or phobia about snakes. That's an illusion in the sense of a misinterpretation, but not necessarily a complete misinterpretation. The coil of rope was perceived as a 'coil' which is correct at a very basic level.
    The 8th century A.D. Chinese romantic poet, Li Po, apparently drowned, according to legend, by trying to grasp the reflection of the moon in the water, whilst in a boat on a lake. He was drunk.
    Again, this was not a complete misinterpretation. He was at least able to recognise that the reflection was of the moon, but missed the fact it was just a reflection.
    However, when I gaze at the full moon on a clear night, whilst completely sober, and see the subtle shades of patterns and craters, and decide to photographic the moon with a telephoto lens, is what I'm conscious of an illusion? Can we not be completely certain that the moon exists?
  4. The Buddha replied:

    In the iikincanfliiyatana jhana (absorption in the realm of nothingness), the consciousness of the act of consciousness disappeared but that of nothingness appeared instead.

    Finally, in the sanfliivedayitanirodha, which is the last level of jhana, the consciousness of nothingness also disappeared, and no new consciousness appeared.

    Therefore, the complete cessation of consciousness existed continually in such a state.

    During the time, we could not say that there was consciousness, for the person has no feeling at all.

    But we could neither say that there was no consciousness, for the person could be conscious again after he came out of the jhana.

    Neither could he be declared dead ~or could he be declared not dead.

    This is the complete cessatIon of sannii or consciousness which could be caused to occur by human's control, power or action.

    What the Buddha was teaching is that there are levels of existence without consciousness, Nibanna being the ultimate state.

    Al this is suggesting that there is a state beyond consciousness, and that consciousness, and self, are illusory.

    Rocky,
    Thanks for your detailed quotes, but I have to confess that I sometimes struggle with these concepts of nothingness, from a logical and linguistic aspect. Nothingness, by definition, cannot 'appear'. Such wording, perhaps as a result of the translation, is creating the impression that 'nothing' is 'something'.
    As for, 'complete cessation of consciousness', we have a very simple word for that, 'unconscious', which raises the question, why would anyone want to strive to become unconscious?
    An explanation that makes sense to me, is for reasons of power and control over oneself and one's own mind. To have such control over one's mind, as to be able to put oneself into a state of anaesthesia without the use of drugs or anaesthetics, is remarkable.
    However, I'm not suggesting that achieving such states of unconsciousness through long practice, is no different from taking an anaesthetic, or sleeping. I can imagine that the complete rest from the constant activity of the mind, achieved without the use of drugs, and a more complete rest than anything achieved even during the best sleep, could result in a completely new and liberating experience.
    Even when we are asleep, and are not dreaming, or are under the effects of an anaesthetic, the mind is still active to a degree, known as 'slow-wave' activity.
  5. The 4 Noble Truths indicate that the cycle of Re Birth will cease.

    Going by the limited re Birth model of "moment to moment" doesn't this mean that there will no longer be an arising of your consciousness?

    What is the point of doing this?

    Rocky,

    It's possible that an experience of ecstasy might result, when all thoughts have ceased. Better than sex, some claim. wink.png

  6. ........Instead of using placebo effect which is just temporary, why not let them understand the truth ?

    Because we don't know the truth. Don't you realise that? Only a very few individuals are claimed to know the truth, such as Buddha and Jesus Christ. Whether those individuals actually did know the truth in reality, is a matter of belief. Furthermore, when talking about the truth in a scientific context, one has to be very specific. The truth about what, precisely? Even the Buddha did not claim to know whether or not their exists a creator God. The combined knowledge of modern science has arrived at a stage where it is able to potentially detect or observe, using the best scientific instruments available, only 5% of the matter and energy that surrounds us. The rest, about 95%, is an unknown. It's existence is mere speculation. Didn't you know that?

    As I've mentioned before, there are basically two types of people. Those who know that they don't know, and those who don't know that they don't know. You appear to be in the latter group, Only1.

  7. Well said.

    This is the best way.

    If it turns out that the goal was self improvement, would you still devote a life to dedicated practice, living an ascetic life devoid of any possession other than your robe and bowl, and remove yourself from the consumer world completely?

    I guess that depends on how you define 'self improvement', Rocky? Isn't the term 'self' rather problematic in Buddhism?

    I believe you were once a monk in Thailand. Why did you disrobe? (I'm assuming you have disrobed, so apologies if I've got that wrong.)

    Speaking for myself, my interest in Buddhism is related to a certain fascination with the concept that one can achieve satisfaction, equanimity and even joy, without lifting a finger. Perhaps at a subconscious level this appeals to my innate sense of laziness. wink.png

    Hi V.

    No, was never a Monk.

    But you've spent some time at a retreat in Thailand, haven't you?

    Why should I don a costume, give up all my possessions and become a full time ascetic?

    I don't think the costume is important, but the experience of being a full time ascetic, living alone in a cave for 12 years, might be invaluable. You might become a world-wide celebrity. wink.png
    Have you seen this video of Tenzin Palmo's experiences in a cave. It's quite remarkable that she claims she was not lonely at all. It's quite a long video.
  8. Exactly, no one can be sure, meaning a person may end without heaven despite believing with the church an entire life. All the more my actions are proven good intentions and right thoughts.

    You've missed the point. It doesn't matter whether or not there is life after death, or a heaven and hell. The placebo effect is a real effect. We don't fully understand it yet, but we recognise that all belief has a placebo effect. It's why Drug companies need double-blind tests using placebos to test the efficacy of their new drugs. The placebo effect is always at work, even if the drug is useless. An effective drug is one that has an effect that is greater than the placebo effect. It's estimated that, on average, about 30% of the effectiveness of any drug, can be attributed to a placebo effect. It's always present.

    Religion can have a tremendous placebo effect. I've got no objection to that. The problem is with those who try to reinforce the placebo effect by killing anyone who disagrees with their belief. I think you know who I am referring to.

    Placebo may work only if a person don't know about it. Once a person understand placebo effects, it will never work.

    The same for those who believe a religion out of faith or blind faith. I have see too many Christians suffered miserably near death, when they awakens from their heavenly dreams.

    Not necessarily. Even when people are informed they are being given a placebo, it can still have a beneficial effect, possibly because they feel good that at least someone is taking the trouble to administer something to them, even though it's a sugar pill, and show them some care.
    Religious belief can have a very strong placebo effect in reducing pain and curing certain ailments. You wouldn't want to deprive people of this benefit, would you?
  9. Well said.

    This is the best way.

    If it turns out that the goal was self improvement, would you still devote a life to dedicated practice, living an ascetic life devoid of any possession other than your robe and bowl, and remove yourself from the consumer world completely?

    I guess that depends on how you define 'self improvement', Rocky? Isn't the term 'self' rather problematic in Buddhism?
    I believe you were once a monk in Thailand. Why did you disrobe? (I'm assuming you have disrobed, so apologies if I've got that wrong.)
    Speaking for myself, my interest in Buddhism is related to a certain fascination with the concept that one can achieve satisfaction, equanimity and even joy, without lifting a finger. Perhaps at a subconscious level this appeals to my innate sense of laziness. wink.png
  10. I am not confused and I am logical and reasonable. I read that Enstein mentioned Buddhism is the best and most futuristic too. Need not listen to anyone. The Buddha said one must use his own mind.

    Shall we start a Creator God concept thread separately ? Allowed in Thai visa ?

    If you are logical and reasonable, then you should be able to appreciate that our knowledge of the universe and the material world that surrounds us is not nearly as great as most of us like to think.
    It is ego, vanity and pride that causes us to think we are so clever and knowledgeable. The reality might be, we are so clever that we might be the first species in the history of the planet to cause its own extinction. sad.png
  11. The other state, Nibanna , is a state existing without causes and contributing factors and is eternal.

    Rocky,

    Such a concept is in the same category as scientifically undetectable and invisible spirits and forces from a Creator God.

    Totally different from a creator god concept which is both debunked by science ,logic defying and unreasonable(the creator created two similar religions to fight on order to "test" them?). Nirwana concept is not debunked by science or unreasonable or logic defying.
    You seem confused. The creator God concept has not been debunked by science or logic. One of our greatest scientists, Albert Einstein, believed in God. His understanding or concept of God was different to the Biblical, or Theistic understanding. His concept was more along the lines of some sort of intelligent designer, rather than a personal God who listened to one's prayers.
    For example, there is a view of a God (or intelligent designer) who created mankind through the processes of evolution, that we are now beginning to understand.
    One of the greatest scientists of all time, Sir Isaac Newton, was deeply religious, but in a way which would have been considered heretical at the time. He kept quiet about his religious views to avoid any persecution.
  12. The other state, Nibanna , is a state existing without causes and contributing factors and is eternal.

    Rocky,
    Such a concept is in the same category as scientifically undetectable and invisible spirits and forces from a Creator God.
  13. Hi M.

    Bikkhi Buddhadasa, the Buddha's slave as he referred to himself, and one believed to be an Arahant, refers to Buddhism as a religion.

    Religions are not restricted to theism.

    An important ingredient of religion is existence beyond our mortal state. This is accommodated with Nibanna. Also religions have a state/place which is ever lasting or forever.

    Nibanna, permanent and unconditioned.

    Hi Rocky,
    That's a good point. However, the problems of 'belief' still exist within the Buddhist concept of Nirvana.
    To rational people like myself, conditioned by the evidence and success of scientific principles, the dismissal by Buddhism of the existence of an Almighty Creator God, on the grounds that such matters are intrinsically beyond our comprehension, makes sense and gives credibility to the Buddha's teachings.
    Unfortunately, the descriptions of Nirvana seem as vague and implausible, and as unknowable, as the descriptions of an Almighty Creator God, so in a sense, we are back to square 1. wink.png
  14. Do you think just because a God created humans, he can choose anyone at anytime to kill him ?

    If it's true that there exists a God who created humans, then it's reasonable to consider the possibility that 'He, She or It' would be able to kill any human at any time.
    The current state of our scientific knowledge is such that we have perhaps reached the very advanced stage of being able to detect approximately 5% of the matter and energy that surrounds us. 95% of the stuff that surrounds us is completely invisible, apparently, according to our latest theories of Physics. We give it the names Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

    On placebo effects, if any claims about the next life are made just for the purpose of this lifetime then that religion is simply not honest.

    Honesty is being truthful about what you 'believe' or accept to be true at any point in time, and not lying about it. Whether or not what we believe to be true at present, eventually proves to be false at some time in the future, is another issue.
    For example, when educated people used to think that the Earth was the centre of the universe, and used to teach that to others, they were not being dishonest. They were not lying. To the naked eye it seems quite obvious that all the stars and the moon, visible at night, are revolving around the Earth. Even before telescopes were invented, some of the ancient Greeks considered the possibility that the Earth was in fact revolving around the sun, but the maths didn't support such theories, partly because they were assuming the orbits were circular rather than elliptical.
    The need for religion can perhaps be explained by the insecurity that most people feel when they are uncertain about issues which they imagine or feel are important to them. When people lose their loved ones, see their parents die, or lose their child in an accident, it is quite natural that they should wonder what happens to those 'personalities' after death. Where has their 'spirit' gone? The grief is so painful, they demand answers, and, in a hierarchical society, the answers are provided by the rulers, priests or 'spiritual' authorities.
    You must have noticed, 'Only1', that uncertainty is an intolerable state of affairs for most people. A soldier who goes into battle cannot afford to be uncertain about victory.
    Buddhism teaches one to be at peace with uncertainty.
  15. Exactly, no one can be sure, meaning a person may end without heaven despite believing with the church an entire life. All the more my actions are proven good intentions and right thoughts.

    You've missed the point. It doesn't matter whether or not there is life after death, or a heaven and hell. The placebo effect is a real effect. We don't fully understand it yet, but we recognise that all belief has a placebo effect. It's why Drug companies need double-blind tests using placebos to test the efficacy of their new drugs. The placebo effect is always at work, even if the drug is useless. An effective drug is one that has an effect that is greater than the placebo effect. It's estimated that, on average, about 30% of the effectiveness of any drug, can be attributed to a placebo effect. It's always present.

    Religion can have a tremendous placebo effect. I've got no objection to that. The problem is with those who try to reinforce the placebo effect by killing anyone who disagrees with their belief. I think you know who I am referring to.

  16. How sure are you or we that there is no life or hell after death ?

    Descriptions of Heaven after death, which one goes to if one has behaved properly, are enticements and encouragement for people who might otherwise not behave properly. Descriptions of Hell for misbehaviour, reinforce that encouragement to behave properly. This is known as the 'carrot and stick' approach, to get people to behave in a particular way, often used by governments and the taxation system. wink.png
  17. AYJAYDEE,

    My good intentions.

    By sharing the truth behind their religion, I will not only prevent more people from being cheated by them but also let their people understand life and don't get disappointed to find no heaven as promised, after their death.

    Also, I can reduce the sins of their pastors. No way I can be wrong for doing it. Isn't it ?

    I tend not to get involved in religious discussions at this level. However, since 'Only1' has placed great importance on logic, in many of his posts, I would like to point out the total absurdity and complete lack of logic in part of his comment, as quoted above, which I've highlighted in bold.
    If there's no life after death, it's impossible to get disappointed. One can only be disappointed if there is life after death, and if that life doesn't meet one's expectations.
    There's a related concept known as Pascal's Wager, which some consider is flawed, but it does contain an element of logic. Basically, Pascal's argument is that one has nothing to lose if one abides by Christian principles in this life. One's life should be more harmonious and fulfilling if one gives the most importance to Christian values such as 'loving one's neighbour and enemy', and 'doing unto others as you would have them do unto you', and so on. The 'flow on' effects of such behaviour should be sufficient reward in themselves.
    If it turns out there is no after-life, then there's no problem. One won't exist to be aware of it. If there is an after-life, then it's possible that one will get a bonus for one's good behaviour whilst on Earth.
    The flaw in the argument is, one can't necessarily be certain, logically, that the Christian principles one is following, represent the actual will of God, assuming that God exists. They might have been misinterpreted, at least to some extent, if not completely, so what any individual might consider to have been impeccable behaviour on this Earth, might be considered by God to have been flawed behaviour, not deserving of the highest rewards of everlasting heaven. wink.png
  18. How much time to you have to discuss the topic.?

    For the rest of my life of course, although not continuously, you understand. wink.png

    On some Buddhist discussion forums there are latterly hundreds of posts discussing this topic.Both pro and con.

    Let's just say there are Buddhist groups who accept it and other groups who don't ..... and basically all shades of opinion in between.

    Sounds like the same situation with almost every topic that people discuss. Everyone has an opinion. Why do people discuss anything? Speaking for myself, a discussion helps me to clarify my own thoughts on an issue, as well as providing me with the opportunity to learn of a new perspective, a different way of looking at an issue and/or new facts relating to the issue.

  19. 2. Don't mix up Buddhism with other religions for the purpose of this thread. Here, I only wish to talk about the Buddhistic part of science or the scientific part of Buddhism, which you may call it later.

    You need go no further than the Kalama Sutta to get an answer to your question. I think most of us are impressed and very grateful for the benefits of modern science, but it seems to me that relatively few of us appreciate and understand the nature and the fundamental processes of the scientific method, which rely upon repeated, controlled and varying experiments to either confirm or refute a hypothesis.
    This lack of understanding of the basis of the scientific methodology can present a huge problem in relation to major social and political issues, such as the current issue of anthropogenic climate change, on which issue, those who express a justified skepticism are branded as 'deniers', as though the science is settled and the conclusions are certain. The claimed certainty about the dire effects of increased CO2 levels are akin to a religious fervour.
    For the benefit of those who haven't read the Kalama Sutta, which is a talk delivered by the Buddha to a clan of people called the Kalamas, who inhabited the village of Kesaputta in northern India, here it is below.
    The Kalama Sutta, Angutarra Nikaya 3.65, Sutta Pitaka, Pali Canon
    1. Do not believe in something merely because it is reported.
    2. Do not believe in something because it has been practiced by generations, or has become a tradition or part of a culture.
    3. Do not believe in something because a scripture says it is so.
    4. Do not believe in something because you think a God has inspired it.
    5. Do not believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so.
    6. Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so.
    7. Do not believe in hearsay, rumour, speculative opinion, or acceptance to logic and inference alone.
    8. Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others.
    What I find remarkable about this Sutta is that it essentially lays the groundwork for the application of the scientific method, as far back as 2,500 years. Every good, modern day scientist should adopt the attitude expressed in this Sutta, in my opinion.
    However, in case there is any confusion, I should add that the translation of this Sutta is perhaps not ideal. I assume that all these instructions to 'not believe' in a particular thing have the qualifying word 'merely', which should be at least implied. It would not be wise to instruct one's children not to believe what the teacher tells you, full stop. wink.png
    On the issue of 'logic and inference' in point #7, it might seem odd, or non-scientific, to advise against accepting logic alone. However, my understanding is that logic is not infallible. There are certain logical, mathematical constructs which can lead to absurdity, but don't ask me to give you examples. wink.png
    There are also phenomena such as 'quantum weirdness' which seem to defy common logic, yet appear to be true in accordance with experiments and the application of the scientific method.
  20. The world was flat once, the sun revolved around the earth at another time...your not telling us anything we didn't know so what you trying to prove?

    Your wrong that many people are ignorant, they have free will and choice to choose there belief structure, better to not label people because they don't fit into your box, religion like politics is a subject that has no boundaries, to each his own as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

    I think you might be on the wrong forum, mate. This is the Buddhist forum. Ignorance and suffering are central to the Buddhist understanding of mankind. A major purpose of the Buddhist teachings is to help people dispel their ignorance, particularly with regard to deluded notions about 'self' and 'ego'.

    In Buddhism, the only people who are free from ignorance are those who have achieved full enlightenment. Those who are not enlightened fall into two categories (for the sake of simplicity); those who know they are ignorant, and those who don't know they are ignorant.

    Which are you? I fall into the first category. I know I'm ignorant.

  21. Now that you've all had time to digest what I've previously written, and have understood that it's not possible in principle to prove the non-existence of an unknown, undetectable entity, the question could arise as to what is the best attitude to have regarding any claimed certainty about the existence of God.


    This is where Buddhism and modern science seem to be in alignment. The Buddha, and also certain Chinese philosophers such as Confucius, seemed to have understood that the existence of an almighty, creator God is so obviously beyond the capacity of humans to understand, why waste time over the problem! They held the view that there are better or more urgent things to attend to. When embarking upon any project, whether it's an expensive scientific research project, or a small-scale personal project, one should be reasonably confident of a successful outcome, otherwise one could waste a lot of effort and resources to no avail.


    In my opinion, the best position to have on this issue is to be honest and truthful, that is, agnostic, which essentially means 'ignorant'. Unfortunately, many people are too uncomfortable with the reality that they are ignorant. The term is also often used in a derogatory sense to insult someone, as in, 'you ignorant slob', so people tend to have an aversion towards considering themselves ignorant. But the reality is, we are all ignorant to varying degrees, and often the more we know, the more we understand the extent of our ignorance.


    At this stage of human development, we are so ignorant that we are unable to detect in any way, shape or form, 95% of the matter and energy that surrounds us. We give it the fictitious names of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

    We think that Dark Matter and Dark Energy must exist because our current theories of Astrophysics imply that it should exist. If the reality is, it doesn't exist, then our theories are wrong, or at least very inaccurate in relation to the large-scale universe.

  22. I think one must understand logic before understanding science.

    If any belief is logic defying e.g. an almighty God, I think science will not even search for him as the logic of the claim itself is already not coherent with logic. Science proved many things through research. Religious beliefs of gods, ghosts, spirits, souls, rebirth, karma,etc may not be believed by many people or scientists but they are not debunked or proven to be non existence by science too.

    Anyone agree or disagree with any part of my above comments before I continue ?

    First, I would make the point that it's not always possible to prove the non-existence of something without being certain that one is aware of, or can detect, the presence of everything that can exist within the space that one is considering.
    With regard to the existence of God, the space is the entire universe. Furthermore, the latest science admits that 95% of the matter and energy in the universe is invisible and undetectable by the latest and greatest scientific instruments, just as the radio waves that are currently transmitting the image that I see on my TV set, are invisible to me, despite my tremendous eyesight and billions of neurons in my brain.
    I can see the result or effect of such rays because the TV is switched on. But the rays themselves are invisible, even though they are continuously present.
    Science is all about investigating what can be detected. Supposing I were to concoct a story along the following lines. I was born on a planet that encircles a distant star about 3,000 light years from Earth. My spirit was transmitted over a long period of time to my mother's womb where I took on a physical presence as a human fetus.
    Now such a story is ridiculous, but how can science disprove it? We simply don't have the technology to examine all the planets that might encircle stars that are 3,000 light years away. Got it?
  23. Spirituality is basically consciousness and awareness. These are hard to prove scientifically especially when most scientists don't want to prove it, despite some experiments like the quantum dual slit thing which changes when people observe it.

    Those wanting scientific proof are ignorant IMHO, how can one prove scientifically that the Buddha, or anyone else was enlightened for example?

    I never dismiss the entire teachings of a religion. There are often jewels to be found. The 'Serenity Prayer' in Christianity is one such jewel.
    "God grant me the serenity
    To accept the things I cannot change;
    Courage to change the things I can;
    And wisdom to know the difference."
    Now, for the benefit of Neeranam, I've modified this prayer as follows. I hope he pays attention. wink.png
    "God grant me the wisdom
    To understand what is certain;
    The courage to see what is uncertain;
    And the intelligence to know the difference."
  24. Science and religion do not align, science needs hard proof religion is based on faith and acceptance.

    I have no problem at all with that concept, provided that the faith and acceptance is based upon reality.
    Science can often demonstrate that a particular view, or belief, is not based upon the reality of how the real world works. When people persist in believing in something that does not accord with reality, then serious problems can arise.
×
×
  • Create New...