Karma

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, thaicurious said:

I did not say what you've said I said that "you ought not believe" as I was not telling you what to believe and so it is a bit disingenuous of you to present that snip out of context. What I said was: "Quantum physics might one day show you ought not believe...." as a pun on what you'd said, by here utilizing the concept of quantum consciousness or quantum mind, for there are numerous ways of thinking about consciousness, not just yours even if you think the one you googled is the most realistic.

 

Here's a google on the Buddhist take of it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijñāna#Dependent_origination

And that's what I quoted you as saying, the part in bold. It's true that this time I missed out the part, "Quantum physics might one day show', for the sake of brevity, but that should be no problem because I previously quoted that full statement of yours in post #134 on page 9.

 

What might eventually be shown one day is currently pure speculation. It might one day be shown that there is a Creator God, or perhaps that some advanced civilization visited our planet about 3.5 billion years ago to sow the seeds of life in our soupy seas.

 

However, as I understand, the Buddha did not recommend speculation on matters that were impossible to determine. He was all about giving full attention to the present moment. The Buddhist concept of Rebirth is controversial. It seems to be heavily influenced by the Vedic concept of Reincarnation.

 

There are many highly respected Bhikkhus with an academic background who interpret the concept of Rebirth as applying to the arising and falling of thoughts, rather than the physical birth of a new person or creature.

[jak2002003]

4 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

If so, then I can't really see the point?

 

You don't 'see the point' in reducing suffering and unhappiness in your life?  You don't wish to be a happier, more content, less stressed and more peaceful person with an improved mind, at the same time helping others around you and the world in general to be a more pleasant place?

 

 

[thaicurious]

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

However, as I understand, the Buddha did not recommend speculation on matters that were impossible to determine. He was all about giving full attention to the present moment. The Buddhist concept of Rebirth is controversial. It seems to be heavily influenced by the Vedic concept of Reincarnation.

Besides that there is some basis, some evidence possibly--even if certainly no where yet fully proven--leading to what I'd said, which means it is not pure speculation, besides that I told you (just in case not caught) that I'd said it as a joke to make a point and I'm pretty sure Buddhism allows for humor, even if you don't like mine, Hotei, science is early still in studying quantum physics so we don't yet know all of what might be found there though we can conjecture with care based on what it has so far found. How surprised was science that observation affects experiments?

 

That the way ahead might not yet be in focus, I'm pretty sure Buddha wouldn't mind putting out some probes to see if we are on more sure footing before asserting a strong foundation for the journey has been laid. Wondering if a rickety rope bridge is safe to cross is probably not the speculation Buddha would say you ought avoid. I'd imagine he'd say: you might want to examine that further before putting all your weight upon it. You might want to speculate what might happen if ya don't. There's a lot of practical purpose to Buddhism. Even without knowing absolutely, without full and proven evidence of having seen someone already fall, that the bridge might not hold, through examination, through bits of knowledge that the planks are dry rotted, that the rope is frayed, we can speculate what might happen or deduce what might come from putting our faith in that and we'd be negligent to not as actions arising from failing that could cause greater suffering.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggi-Vacchagotta_Sutta

"...an unresolvable thicket of views which will cause suffering and distress if investigated..."

 

So avoiding pure speculation can make sense to avoid entanglements with what doesn't matter or maybe even with what can't be known, with what will not help reduce suffering, with how even a dysfunctioned brain, bereft of good balance that might, say, cause associations of things not in reality associated which might entangle the mind, not with failing to examine a thing to assure, for instance, that we are not about to fall off a cliff or for taking as truth, for face value, as what, say, a con man is trying to sell us and certainly not for bringing us greater knowledge be that through conjectures and theorizing of science and mathematics that can help reduce suffering by later implementation of learned theories leading to applications disseminated on a worldwide scale be that in food production, pollution reversal, carbon emission reduction, etc., even as some of that might start as speculation, by an "unenlightened" scientist or a mathematician daring to ask themselves by imagining "what if".

 

So here again you're exhibiting a tendency to take a concept and employ it overall to something else that it might have nothing to do with outside of exemplifying that thing which is fine on its own, just not as a replacement for that thing which is what you seem to try and do. These things, as I said before, can co-exist, which is one of the beautiful things about Buddhism, it does not seek to override or overwhelm other trains of thought but to explore from whence a thought arises and to where it might lead, to suffering or towards the cessation thereof.

[thaicurious]

9 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

You don't 'see the point' in reducing suffering and unhappiness in your life?  You don't wish to be a happier, more content, less stressed and more peaceful person with an improved mind, at the same time helping others around you and the world in general to be a more pleasant place?

"We all seek happiness but turn our backs on it. We all wish to avoid misery but race to collect its causes."~~Shantideva

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, thaicurious said:

Besides that there is some basis, some evidence possibly--even if certainly no where yet fully proven--leading to what I'd said, which means it is not pure speculation, besides that I told you (just in case not caught) that I'd said it as a joke to make a point and I'm pretty sure Buddhism allows for humor, even if you don't like mine, Hotei, science is early still in studying quantum physics so we don't yet know all of what might be found there though we can conjecture with care based on what it has so far found. How surprised was science that observation affects experiments?

 

If you are attempting to make a joke, it's better to add an emoticon to avoid confusion. Hope you don't mind my quoting only part of your very long-winded post. ????

 

I don't see anything necessarily wrong with speculation. In fact, all scientific hypotheses contain at least some speculation before the hypothesis becomes an accepted theory.

 

The essential point, in my opinion, is to be able to distinguish between what we know and what we don't know, and be aware of the grades of certainty or uncertainty that lie in between the two extremes of reasonable certainty and mere speculation.

 

I was also impressed, years ago, by the logic behind the concept that when we attempt to observe the behaviour of very small wave/ particles, such as photons, the actual act of observation will affect the behaviour of the particles that are being observed, which might explain some of the weirdness.

 

I have no objection to speculation in general. It can be fun and does not have to cause any stress. I've always been impressed, and quite amazed in fact, by the current hypothesis regarding Dark Matter and Dark Energy. That about 95% of all the matter and energy in the universe is currently undetectable and invisible, despite our advances in technology, really puts our knowledge of the universe into perspective. ????
 

[thaicurious]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

If you are attempting to make a joke, it's better to add an emoticon to avoid confusion. Hope you don't mind my quoting only part of your very long-winded post. ????

"If you are attempting to make a joke, it's better to add an emoticon to avoid confusion. Hope you don't mind my quoting only part due to my lack of concentration."

 

fixed

 

insert smiley face

[VincentRJ]

37 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

"If you are attempting to make a joke, it's better to add an emoticon to avoid confusion. Hope you don't mind my quoting only part due to my lack of concentration."

 

fixed

 

insert smiley face

Oooh! So very Buddhist of you. ????