I've always been impressed by the rationality of Buddhism, in contrast to the mythological beliefs of other religions.
Whilst it's true that there are many mythologies associated with Buddhism, which appear to have been created to satisfy local populations who need to believe in some sort of miraculous and divine intervention, the fundamental teachings of Buddhism, found in the Pali Canon which is the oldest textual reference describing the Buddha's teachings, make rational sense and are in alignment with modern science.

 

I'm impressed with such basic teachings, such as, nothing is permanent, everything is subject to 'cause and effect', suffering is cause by greed, ignorance, and attachment to things and people, and so on.

 

However, what I find very puzzling is the history of conflict between S.E Asian Buddhist countries such as Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia, which are all Theravada Buddhist countries whose source is the same Pali Canon.

 

Around 5 to 6 hundred years ago, the Thais ransacked the amazing Khmer civilization, causing the remaining population who had previously struggled with a series of major droughts and floods, to permanently leave their cities.

 

Now, 5 to 6 hundred years later, the two countries are still squabbling about the location of their borders. This is crazy. What's going on?

Every country is more or less at war with each other and even themselves in some way. Its noteworthy that countries in proximity dont like each other, it has nothing to do with religion. Humans are not tolerant of each other

 

i shouldnt say it has nothing to do with religion, but rather religion isnt the cause of human intolerance

A practical purpose of religions, as I see it, is to keep communities united and in harmony, by creating rules of good behaviour for this life, and creating scenarios of dire punishment in the afterlife, as a consequence of bad behaviour in this life.

 

Buddhism summarises these rules of good behaviour in the Noble Eightfold Path, describing a set of eight practices which leads to liberation from suffering. They are: Right View, Right Resolve, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.

 

Buddhism also stresses the importance of avoiding, anger, hatred, and all forms of killing. Buddhist monks are not even allowed to work in the field to grow their own food, because they will likely and perhaps unavoidably kill worms and insects in the ground.

 

I find it very strange that countries that endorse the national religion of Buddhism, which advises people to avoid even killing ants by treading on them as they walk, should engage in such horrible wars and conflicts, resulting in the killing of that marvelous species called Homo Sapiens, which means 'The Wise Human'.
 

On 10/15/2025 at 12:00 PM, VincentRJ said:

I'm impressed with such basic teachings, such as, nothing is permanent, everything is subject to 'cause and effect', suffering is cause by greed, ignorance, and attachment to things and people, and so on.

However, what I find very puzzling is the history of conflict between S.E Asian Buddhist countries 

Hi Vincent.

 

I suspect that the impressive teachings which you've highlighted are at play.

 

Greed, Aversion & Delusion being the high level afflictions.

 

Those in power will often pretend with devout displays in order to gain political support.

But inside they know this is just one of many tools which they use.

 

The ultimate aim is to gain power and wealth for themselves and their backers.

It's always been that way.

 

The machinations of individual military conflicts might involve historic power plays or attempts to divert attention should they fall from favour due to other policies or power plays. 

 

Could they be stoking patriotic anger to divert attention from major economic or other political issues of the time?

 

Another reason, which nests under the aforementioned afflictions, is the great wealth generated to a few, due to increased military expenditure required to arm such conflicts.

 

Further, I would go as far as saying that at least 80% of Buddhist followers in the said countries either, do not know what was actually let alone put it into practice for long enough to make any difference.

 

Most revere the Buddha as a God, or deity, and they practice donation for good luck.

 

The Buddha was never a God, but rather a teacher, and he never taught good luck.

 

Even if Buddhist followers knew, or took the time to learn what was taught, their next hurdle is to find the effort to practice it.

 

Given this situation, very few would have gained enough of a level of self awareness to have any impact on international conflicts.

 

And their leaders! 

You only need to ask them why they aspired to such positions of power.

But, will they answer honestly?

19 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

Hi Vincent.

 

I suspect that the impressive teachings which you've highlighted are at play.

 

Greed, Aversion & Delusion being the high level afflictions.

 

Those in power will often pretend with devout displays in order to gain political support.

But inside they know this is just one of many tools which they use.

 

The ultimate aim is to gain power and wealth for themselves and their backers.

It's always been that way.

 

The machinations of individual military conflicts might involve historic power plays or attempts to divert attention should they fall from favour due to other policies or power plays. 

 

Could they be stoking patriotic anger to divert attention from major economic or other political issues of the time?

 

Another reason, which nests under the aforementioned afflictions, is the great wealth generated to a few, due to increased military expenditure required to arm such conflicts.

 

Further, I would go as far as saying that at least 80% of Buddhist followers in the said countries either, do not know what was actually let alone put it into practice for long enough to make any difference.

 

Most revere the Buddha as a God, or deity, and they practice donation for good luck.

 

The Buddha was never a God, but rather a teacher, and he never taught good luck.

 

Even if Buddhist followers knew, or took the time to learn what was taught, their next hurdle is to find the effort to practice it.

 

Given this situation, very few would have gained enough of a level of self awareness to have any impact on international conflicts.

 

And their leaders! 

You only need to ask them why they aspired to such positions of power.

But, will they answer honestly?

 

Thanks, Rocky. That's a good summary of the reasons why Buddhist countries still engage in violence and killing, despite the core teachings of the Buddha.

 

I'm reminded of the story about the Buddha's first thoughts regarding teaching others, after he became enlightened. He initially thought it would be a waste of time because it would be beyond the capacity of most people to understand his teachings and would be too difficult for them to practice his advice. However, he later decided to teach because he thought it would be worthwhile if only a few people understood and benefitted from his revelations and wisdom.

 

I remember many years ago as a teenager, contemplating on the absurdity of the continual conflicts throughout history, by 'so-called' Christian countries, despite Christianity's fundamental concept of 'Love Thine Enemy'.

 

When I later came across the Buddha's teachings, I got the impression that there was a much greater emphasis on avoiding all violence and killing, yet this doesn't seem to have a had a greater effect in reducing violence and wars, in Buddhist countries.

 

I did an internet search for countries that have never engaged in war, and came across the following: San Marino, Vatican City, Iceland, Vanuatu, Greenland. None of them are Buddhist states or countries.

 

What's interesting is that there's no record of Greenland engaging in battles, even during the Viking era. Greenland doesn't even have a military.
 

On 10/21/2025 at 3:51 PM, VincentRJ said:

 

Thanks, Rocky. That's a good summary of the reasons why Buddhist countries still engage in violence and killing, despite the core teachings of the Buddha.

 

I'm reminded of the story about the Buddha's first thoughts regarding teaching others, after he became enlightened. He initially thought it would be a waste of time because it would be beyond the capacity of most people to understand his teachings and would be too difficult for them to practice his advice. However, he later decided to teach because he thought it would be worthwhile if only a few people understood and benefitted from his revelations and wisdom.

 

I remember many years ago as a teenager, contemplating on the absurdity of the continual conflicts throughout history, by 'so-called' Christian countries, despite Christianity's fundamental concept of 'Love Thine Enemy'.

 

When I later came across the Buddha's teachings, I got the impression that there was a much greater emphasis on avoiding all violence and killing, yet this doesn't seem to have a had a greater effect in reducing violence and wars, in Buddhist countries.

 

I did an internet search for countries that have never engaged in war, and came across the following: San Marino, Vatican City, Iceland, Vanuatu, Greenland. None of them are Buddhist states or countries.

 

What's interesting is that there's no record of Greenland engaging in battles, even during the Viking era. Greenland doesn't even have a military.
 

 

Interesting Vincent.

 

I won't mention the details, nor the country, but a friend suffered the worst kind of trauma one can imagine at the hands of Buddhists in a Buddhist country.

An experience which supports your findings.

 

I can't say conclusively, but my thoughts are that it's not so much about understanding the path, nor the difficulty of being able to practice it, but rather, the barrier of not believing in its validity, but then not having the power and resolve to overcome existing habits in order to successfully practice.

 

I liken changing ones habits/conditioning is akin to escaping the pull of gravity once past the event horizon.

 

Our rapid technological progress places way too many distractions in our path.

Also the ability of bad actors to indoctrinate and manipulate the masses with politically skewed beliefs and falsehoods is well documented.

 

Buddhism is actually a philosophy of what is called "Hinduism" in western academia. While violence is something that is seen as negative, war is completely acceptable in both Buddhism and Hinduism.

On 10/15/2025 at 12:35 PM, VincentRJ said:

A practical purpose of religions, as I see it, is to keep communities united and in harmony

😂😂 Religion and conflict are nearly synonymous 😉

On 10/22/2025 at 9:39 PM, rockyysdt said:

 

I can't say conclusively, but my thoughts are that it's not so much about understanding the path, nor the difficulty of being able to practice it, but rather, the barrier of not believing in its validity, but then not having the power and resolve to overcome existing habits in order to successfully practice.

 

 

 

Hi Rocky,

There is indeed a barrier to believing in the validity of Buddhism, and the reasons why are interesting. Everyone is influenced by, and conditioned by, their experiences, culture, and education, from the time they are developing in the mother's womb.

 

If, later in life, one comes across a theory or view that contradicts one's current belief, or acceptance of what is true, then most people will dismiss it without thoroughly examining the justification for the contrary view, especially if they haven't been taught to think for themselves and question everything.

 

Buddhism has tended to deal with this problem by adapting to the different cultures it has spread to, resulting in lots of mystical, fairy-tale add-ons, which appeal to the people of a particular culture in different locations.

 

For example, when the Buddha reached his state of enlightenment, he was initially doubtful that it would be worthwhile to teach his revelations which were contrary to the prevailing culture in India at that time, which specifically included a belief in various Gods. 

 

It makes sense that the Buddha was initially doubtful. A fundamental part of Buddhism is the concept that there is no God who can intervene in one's affairs, and that one must take control of one's own behaviour.

 

The story of the Creator God, Brahma, who, having mystically perceived the Buddha's indecision to teach, appeared before him, bowed down, and requested that he teach the Dhamma, on the grounds that at least a few people would understand his teachings, is a story that would appeal to those who were brought up in a Brahmanical religious society.

 

In other words, the original purpose of this episode in the canonical texts, was not to describe the Buddha's hestitation to teach, but to show that Brahma, who was representative of the Vedic religion during those times, was actually a follower of the Buddha.

 

As a person who was educated in basic science, and who appreciates the fundamental processes of the 'methodology of science', I was very impressed when I came across the 'Kalama Sutta' some years ago.
For those who are not familiar with this sutta, here are the fundamentals:

 

Do not go by:
Reports, legends, or tradition 
Hearsay or rumor 
Scripture or canonical authority 
Logic or conjecture 
Agreement with your own views or what seems plausible 
The appearance of competence or the authority of a teacher 

 

Instead, go by your own knowledge:
When you know for yourselves that certain qualities are unskillful, blameworthy, and lead to harm and suffering, you should abandon them. 
When you know for yourselves that certain qualities are skillful and lead to well-being, you should adopt them. 

 

However, one part of the sutta did trouble me, 'Do not go by Logic or conjecture'. I can understand why one should not go by 'conjecture', which is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information, but logical reasoning is a fundamental part of scientific enquiry. 

 

It then occurred to me that logic can be fallible if the reasoning is based on incorrect data. If you start with a false premise, any logical deduction from it will also be false.
 

22 hours ago, mikebike said:

😂😂 Religion and conflict are nearly synonymous 😉

 

The religious conflicts, historically and also during the current times, are usually between different religions and/or different sects of the same general religion. For example, it is far more common for Protestants to go to war against Catholics, and Shia muslims to go to war against Sunnis, and Christians, in general, to go to war against Mulims, in general.

 

I did an internet search with the question: 'How common was tribal warfare before religions were developed?'

I got the following answer:

 

"Tribal warfare was very common before the development of modern religions, with some sources suggesting as many as 90–95% of known societies engaged in it. Before complex religious systems, conflicts were often driven by disputes over women, resources, or revenge for past aggressions, and could be endemic or escalate to lethal conflicts with high casualty rates. 

 

Warfare was a near-universal feature of human societies before the development of formal states and organized religions. 

 

Despite the undeniable carnage and effectiveness of modern warfare, the evidence shows that tribal warfare was on average 20 times more deadly than 20th-century warfare, whether calculated as a percentage of total deaths due to war or as average deaths per year from war as a percentage of the total population."

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

However, one part of the sutta did trouble me, 'Do not go by Logic or conjecture'. I can understand why one should not go by 'conjecture', which is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information, but logical reasoning is a fundamental part of scientific enquiry. 

 

It then occurred to me that logic can be fallible if the reasoning is based on incorrect data. If you start with a false premise, any logical deduction from it will also be false.
 

Hi Vincent.

 

Well covered.

 

As indicated, if you don't have all the data, then you can't apply logic.

 

Or is reality so boundless, that our ability to comprehend it is akin to an ant understanding string theory.

 

Kippings model suggests that there's a 49.8% chance that we live in a simulation, rather than the real world.

Donald Hoffman has indicated that our physics/mathematics break down at distances smaller than 10 to the minus power of 33 cms, & time slower than 10 to the power of -43 seconds.

He said that this suggests that space time as we know it is a sub set of reality.

 

Is this what 'Kalama Sutta" alludes to when it indicates "Do not go by: Logic "? 

 

 

Did the Buddha break through the simulation we live in, or did he just learn how to live in the present?

 

This question, for me, is the central unknown of Buddhism.

 

Is awakening mundane (learn to live in the present) or is it unfathomable?

 

You have the option of either practicing dharma to improve the mundane quality of your life, or you can devote your life's resources to fully embrace dharma in order to Awaken.

 

Will successful awakening/enlightenment yield infinity, or that which is beyond space time, making serious investment worthwhile, or will such investment result in mundane positives to the exclusion of most pleasures of the senses available in our world?

On 10/23/2025 at 5:14 PM, LivingMineralWater said:

Buddhism is actually a philosophy of what is called "Hinduism" in western academia. While violence is something that is seen as negative, war is completely acceptable in both Buddhism and Hinduism.

When you say violence is completely acceptable to Buddhism and Hinduism, do you mean that violence is inevitable to them, rather than it is good?

On 10/23/2025 at 1:14 PM, LivingMineralWater said:

Buddhism is actually a philosophy of what is called "Hinduism" in western academia. While violence is something that is seen as negative, war is completely acceptable in both Buddhism and Hinduism.

Sorry, but no, "Buddhism is" NOT "actually a philosophy of what is called "Hinduism" in western academia," well unless Western Academia is complete ignorant of Eastern Religions.

Hinduism is Hinduism.
Buddhism is Buddhism.  

In some cases they share some commonality in their Cosmology.  However Hinduism is based on the concept of an eternal soul (atman) and its practice is one of the worship of gods.
A soul doesn't even enter the conversation in Buddhism - it is irrelevant.  And although from a cosmological perspective Buddhism acknowledges a cosmos of gods, there is no worship of gods.  In fact gods are simply seen a another form of sentient beings who ultimately suffer.  Buddhism is about suffering, its causes, the path to its cessation, and the cessation of suffering. Simply, Buddhist place themselves on the path to the cessation of suffering which can lead to the end of suffering via morality and mediation.
But - it is not Hinduism. 

1 hour ago, rockyysdt said:

When you say violence is completely acceptable to Buddhism and Hinduism, do you mean that violence is inevitable to them, rather than it is good?

Violence is not acceptable in Buddhism.  

 

If anyone wishes to study Theravada Buddhism (Thai Buddhism) a good place to start is here:  https://www.dhammatalks.org/

Why are Buddhist countries violent?  How about: Man is a really imperfect being full of wants, and greed, and lust.  Some people dedicate themselves to maintaining morality and a mediation practice, and those people reject violence.  But leaders of Buddhist countries make talk the talk of Buddhism, but few walk the walk. So driven by their personal desires, wants, greed, and lust - leaders of Buddhist countries get side-tracked and pulled into conflict and violence.  Man is a very imperfect being, yet one with the ability to transcend suffering if they chose to follow the path. Few dedicate themselves to following that path diligently. 

3 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

Hi Vincent.

 

Well covered.

 

As indicated, if you don't have all the data, then you can't apply logic.

 

Or is reality so boundless, that our ability to comprehend it is akin to an ant understanding string theory.

 

Kippings model suggests that there's a 49.8% chance that we live in a simulation, rather than the real world.

Donald Hoffman has indicated that our physics/mathematics break down at distances smaller than 10 to the minus power of 33 cms, & time slower than 10 to the power of -43 seconds.

He said that this suggests that space time as we know it is a sub set of reality.

 

Is this what 'Kalama Sutta" alludes to when it indicates "Do not go by: Logic "? 

 

 

Did the Buddha break through the simulation we live in, or did he just learn how to live in the present?

 

This question, for me, is the central unknown of Buddhism.

 

Is awakening mundane (learn to live in the present) or is it unfathomable?

 

You have the option of either practicing dharma to improve the mundane quality of your life, or you can devote your life's resources to fully embrace dharma in order to Awaken.

 

Will successful awakening/enlightenment yield infinity, or that which is beyond space time, making serious investment worthwhile, or will such investment result in mundane positives to the exclusion of most pleasures of the senses available in our world?

 

"As indicated, if you don't have all the data, then you can't apply logic."

 

Well, you can apply logic. We do it all the time. However, if the initial assumption or data are incorrect, then the results of the application of logic will be incorrect. I think the Kalama Sutta is suggesting 'Don't go only by logic', for this reason.

 

"Did the Buddha break through the simulation we live in, or did he just learn how to live in the present?"

 

I'm sure you already know, Rocky, that the Buddha refused to answer certain metaphysical and philosophical questions which he considered were not relevant to the goal of eliminating suffering.
Examples of such questions are:

 

Is the world eternal?
Is the world infinite?
Are the soul and the body the same thing?
Does an enlightened one exist after death?
Did I exist in the past?
What was I in the past?
Will I exist in the future?
What will I be in the future?

 

My personal view is that one cannot separate objective reality from the human characteristics of observation and experience through the 5 senses, and interpretation through the brain.
 

8 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

My personal view is that one cannot separate objective reality from the human characteristics of observation and experience through the 5 senses, and interpretation through the brain.
 

If our world as we know and experience it is a simulation or sub set of reality, then aren't our limitations (the five senses) governed by the rules which control this simulation?

 

If you can break out of the simulation or access senses from the greater reality then wouldn't that allow you to separate objective reality from the human characteristics of observation and experience through the 5 senses?

53 minutes ago, rockyysdt said:

If our world as we know and experience it is a simulation or sub set of reality, then aren't our limitations (the five senses) governed by the rules which control this simulation?

 

If you can break out of the simulation or access senses from the greater reality then wouldn't that allow you to separate objective reality from the human characteristics of observation and experience through the 5 senses?

 

Rocky,

All rules are created by human beings, including the word 'rule', and including all philosophical and scientific concepts.

 

We are all a part of nature, or what we perceive as our surrounding environment, or objective reality.

 

When a person dies, it is reasonable and logical to claim that their human characteristics have been separated from objective reality, because such characteristics no longer exist. However, their inanimate form, in terms of a decaying corpse or ashes from incineration, still exist and are not separate from the external reality that surrounds us.

 

As far as we know, matter and energy can never be destroyed. They can only be changed from one form to another.

 

Does that answer your question? 

8 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Rocky,

All rules are created by human beings, including the word 'rule', and including all philosophical and scientific concepts.

 

We are all a part of nature, or what we perceive as our surrounding environment, or objective reality.

 

When a person dies, it is reasonable and logical to claim that their human characteristics have been separated from objective reality, because such characteristics no longer exist. However, their inanimate form, in terms of a decaying corpse or ashes from incineration, still exist and are not separate from the external reality that surrounds us.

 

As far as we know, matter and energy can never be destroyed. They can only be changed from one form to another.

 

Does that answer your question? 

Not quite.

 

Take a video game for example.

 

The game is called "Vincent farms Rice".

 

In this game Vincent grows to a ripe old age, living a healthy lifestyle, consuming fresh fruit and vegetables and whole rice.

When Vincent expires, the program which allowed Vincent to live out his life, remains.

It is a complete game full of many possibilities and variations due to the many rules of which it's comprised.

Vincent thinks his life has been real, but he is actually wearing a virtual reality headset which allows him to experience life as though it was real.

In reality his experience feels real to him due to the sophistication of the virtual reality headset.

 

The life that Vincent experiences/experienced was virtual all along.

 

Now, how can Vincent escape this virtual subset reality, and enter the much larger actual or real reality?

 

If Kippings model that there's a 49.8% chance that we live in a simulation, rather than the real world, then your statement may not hold.

 

The virtual reality which has been part of Vincent's experience contains many values.

The speed of light, gravity, time, matter & energy and so forth.

These are merely a set rules which govern the virtual reality which Vincent finds himself in.

 

If Vincent could discard his virtual reality headset, he might find himself in the actual/real reality which exists beyond the confines of what we call space/time.

 

Repeating games for Vincent is akin to the process of rebirth as was taught by the Buddha.

Did the Buddha Awaken out of the repeating simulation we find ourselves in.

A repeating, not necessarily as Vincent but as a multitude of entities and lifeforms.

 

When you say "When a person dies, it is reasonable and logical to claim that their human characteristics have been separated from objective reality, because such characteristics no longer exist" is it possible that this statement is incorrect?

Are you assuming that Vincent's characteristics will always be attached to him as was his current experience in his current game?

And are you assuming that that this objective reality is real when it could be virtual?

 

. 

3 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

Not quite.

 

Take a video game for example.

 

The game is called "Vincent farms Rice".

 

In this game Vincent grows to a ripe old age, living a healthy lifestyle, consuming fresh fruit and vegetables and whole rice.

When Vincent expires, the program which allowed Vincent to live out his life, remains.

It is a complete game full of many possibilities and variations due to the many rules of which it's comprised.

Vincent thinks his life has been real, but he is actually wearing a virtual reality headset which allows him to experience life as though it was real.

In reality his experience feels real to him due to the sophistication of the virtual reality headset.

 

The life that Vincent experiences/experienced was virtual all along.

 

Now, how can Vincent escape this virtual subset reality, and enter the much larger actual or real reality?

 

If Kippings model that there's a 49.8% chance that we live in a simulation, rather than the real world, then your statement may not hold.

 

The virtual reality which has been part of Vincent's experience contains many values.

The speed of light, gravity, time, matter & energy and so forth.

These are merely a set rules which govern the virtual reality which Vincent finds himself in.

 

If Vincent could discard his virtual reality headset, he might find himself in the actual/real reality which exists beyond the confines of what we call space/time.

 

Repeating games for Vincent is akin to the process of rebirth as was taught by the Buddha.

Did the Buddha Awaken out of the repeating simulation we find ourselves in.

A repeating, not necessarily as Vincent but as a multitude of entities and lifeforms.

 

When you say "When a person dies, it is reasonable and logical to claim that their human characteristics have been separated from objective reality, because such characteristics no longer exist" is it possible that this statement is incorrect?

Are you assuming that Vincent's characteristics will always be attached to him as was his current experience in his current game?

And are you assuming that that this objective reality is real when it could be virtual?

 

 

"Vincent thinks his life has been real, but he is actually wearing a virtual reality headset which allows him to experience life as though it was real.

In reality his experience feels real to him due to the sophistication of the virtual reality headset."

 

Rocky,

Are you suggesting that Vincent is eating virtual food, and wearing virtual clothes to keep warm, and living in a virtual dwelling to protect himself from the variability of the weather, and crapping and peeing in a virtual toilet, and so on? 🤣

 

I think most people understand there's a difference between fictional entertainment, and reality, although precisely defining that difference in certain specific examples can be a problem. Fiction can be presented as non-fiction, and some people can unwittingly accept the fiction as fact. And that also applies to animals. An example would be a bird crashing into a window because it interprets the reflection of itself as another bird.

 

Prince Siddhartha, according to the story, lived the first 29 years of his life in an environment of luxury in a palace, frequently watching shows of beautiful dancing ladies, and unaware even that people can get sick and that everyone eventually dies.

 

I was aware at the age of five, or so, that people eventually die. To be unaware of that until the age of 29, is extraordinary. If the story is true, I can imagine how traumatic that must have been for Siddhartha.

 

There is also another issue that puzzles me. If Siddhartha didn't know that everyone eventually dies, as a result of being protected from all unpleasantness, he wouldn't have known that his mother had died shortly after his birth.
Surely at some stage, perhaps at the age of 29, he would have been told that, and surely that would also have been a traumatic experience for him.

 

Why is there no mention in the scriptures, of the Buddha's response to the discovery that his mother had died shortly after his birth?

Homo sapiens is 300 000 years old. Buddhism is 2500 years old.

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

" Fiction can be presented as non-fiction, and some people can unwittingly accept the fiction as fact. And that also applies to animals. An example would be a bird crashing into a window because it interprets the reflection of itself as another bird.

 

Without conclusive evidence either way, I tend to move with an open mind to all possibilities.

 

Donald Hoffman, a prominent cognitive psychologist studies consciousness, and in collaboration with leading physicists & mathematicians has been able to produce provable baby step experiments which are incrementally suggesting that we live in a simulation.

 

Rather than using my five senses to establish whether this world is real or not, I'm open to all possibilities in an infinite world.

 

When we speak of infinity or the infinite, to confine this to distance and time wouldn't even begin to describe an infinite world.

 

Certainly the astronomer David Kipping's hypothesis that the 49.8% probability that we live in a simulation is a theory, but Hoffman's work is compelling.

Hoffman has mathematically proven that the laws of physics no longer apply for very small fractions of time & of distance.

His calculations lead him to conclude that space/time is a subset of reality.

As such we can call it a simulation.

 

Returning to Prince Siddhartha, is it possible that his Awakening represented a breaking out of our simulation into a larger reality?

 

 

One theoretical possibility is that all consciousness springs from a single source and that we are singularities in space/time. 

 

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Why is there no mention in the scriptures, of the Buddha's response to the discovery that his mother had died shortly after his birth?

His discovering that we are all mortal and subject to decay and death, might have been his impetus to seek sages and spiritual guides on his ventures away from the palace, and eventually fashioning path to escape from our finite reality, or dare I say, simulation.

On 10/26/2025 at 12:26 AM, VincentRJ said:

 If Siddhartha didn't know that everyone eventually dies, as a result of being protected from all unpleasantness, he wouldn't have known that his mother had died shortly after his birth.
Surely at some stage, perhaps at the age of 29, he would have been told that, and surely that would also have been a traumatic experience for him.

Why is there no mention in the scriptures, of the Buddha's response to the discovery that his mother had died shortly after his birth?

 

Hi Vincent.

 

Just a minor point regarding Siddhartha's possible reaction to learning of his mothers death well after this event.

 

If his mother had died shortly after his birth, then never having physically known her, nor be nurtured by her, would have played a major part in the depth of closeness.

Other than perhaps sympathy from the knowledge of her death, this may not have been as traumatic in comparison to feelings built through an experienced relationship.

3 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

 

Hi Vincent.

 

Just a minor point regarding Siddhartha's possible reaction to learning of his mothers death well after this event.

 

If his mother had died shortly after his birth, then never having physically known her, nor be nurtured by her, would have played a major part in the depth of closeness.

Other than perhaps sympathy from the knowledge of her death, this may not have been as traumatic in comparison to feelings built through an experienced relationship.

 

Hi Rocky,
It's good to see this thread continues. Regarding your above statement, I put the following question to Google.

 

"What are the usual reactions when people discover that their true mother died shortly after their birth?"

 

Here is the AI-generated response.

1. Shock and Disbelief: The initial reaction is often one of stun and disbelief, as this new information can fundamentally alter a person's sense of identity and personal history.
2. Grief and Loss: Individuals often experience a profound sense of grief, not just for the death itself, but for the life they could have had with their mother and for the bond that was lost.
3. Anger and Resentment: Anger may be directed towards those who kept the information a secret, feeling a sense of betrayal and a loss of the right to know one's own life story.
4. Identity Crisis: The news can trigger an identity crisis, leading the individual to question who they are and where they come from.
5. Empathy and Sadness for the Mother: There is often deep sadness and empathy for the mother's experience, imagining her final moments and the life she never got to live.

 

Regarding your reference to Donald Hoffman's hypothesis that we live in a simulation, I find that to be an interesting speculation, which is why I call it a hypothesis. I haven't yet read his book, but I came across the following review which is very interesting.
https://4gravitons.com/2024/02/23/book-review-the-case-against-reality/

 

May you have a happy Christmas, or at least an amusing Christmas, laughing at the absurdity.  🤣

 

I don't believe that true Buddhism, as taught by Gautama, is a religion.

On 12/21/2025 at 3:33 PM, VincentRJ said:

 

Hi Rocky,
It's good to see this thread continues. Regarding your above statement, I put the following question to Google.

Regarding your reference to Donald Hoffman's hypothesis that we live in a simulation, I find that to be an interesting speculation, which is why I call it a hypothesis. I haven't yet read his book, but I came across the following review which is very interesting.
https://4gravitons.com/2024/02/23/book-review-the-case-against-reality/

 

May you have a happy Christmas, or at least an amusing Christmas, laughing at the absurdity.  😊

 

I don't believe that true Buddhism, as taught by Gautama, is a religion.

Hi Vincent.

 

In this turbulent world it's good to have constants (Vincent):

 

something invariable or unchanging: such as. a. : a number that has a fixed value in a given situation or universally or that is characteristic of some substance or instrument. b. : a number that is assumed not to change value in a given mathematical discussion, d. : or a friend is a constant in your life, that means they have always been with you and there for you. Definitions of constant. adjective.  😊

 

I've bookmarked your reference.

 

It was quite a number of years when the Buddha walked upon the earth.

A time far from our modern reality.

A reality moving at exponential rate with AI upon us.

How I see it is that research and hypothesis such as Donald Hoffman's is not far removed from the Buddhas teachings.

Donald himself embraces Buddhist teachings, spends a considerable part of his daily life meditating and subscribes to Ekhardt Tolle's teachings on the power of "stillness of mind".

 

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if you and I have been sharing thoughts for millennia. 

 

Have a great Christmas, a time to reflect on family and life.  

 

Rocky

 

 

 

On 10/15/2025 at 1:06 AM, angryguy said:

i shouldnt say it has nothing to do with religion, but rather religion isnt the cause of human intolerance

Unless one does not tolerate another's religion, of course.