Thai Buddhism: Much deeper things have gone wrong

[Several]

I knew you'd say that.

[Several]

Seeing the future implies that the whole universe is like clock-work and that the future events are "set".

 

This has been disproved by the hard science of quantum mechanics.

 

In other words, anyone that claims they can "see the future", is full of caca.

Actually Quantum mechanics isn't hard science which is why its called mechanics. And time is an unknown factor, described as a dimension. However to mathematically explain the cosmos you need eleven or more dimensions which could imply there are 'lateral' and 'vertical' dimensions of time, albeit potential or unfolded. It is entirely possible that precognition is real.

[SteeleJoe]

"Naturally I have no proof of this, and haven't personally seen or experienced him do...reading stories about his life written by those who I'm sure would never lie..."

And thus do all manner of religions - no matter how absurd their claims - exist.

The Buddha didn't recommend that sort of credulity, I don't think.

PS: I think it somewhat presumptuous to proclaim someone arahant. And isn't LP Jaran big on magic amulets? Future telling...I think he once predicted Abhisit would have two terms but I might be wrong about that...

I guess I'd better stop or I'll wind up snoring like a pig or something worse...

[KarenBravo]

I beg to differ. Quantum mechanics is a hard science.

The definition of a hard science is:-

features often cited as characteristic of hard science include: producing testable predictions; performing physical controlled experiments; relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models; a high degree of accuracy and objectivity; and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.

The validity of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle proves that the universe is not a clockwork model, so therefore clairvoyance is crap.

[52midnight]

> Are religions just a cover up for base human desires, a way to control our animal impulses somewhat? Is anyone really capable of being "saintly"?

What follows are my own views, and I'd be interested in any response as to their accord or divergence from those of others.

Religion has two primary aspects:

1. It is a social construct that allows individuals to gather as a collective with agreed beliefs and goals. It's been said that some Tibetan monasteries had a sign over the entrance "A thousand monks, a thousand religions". The simple doctrines of any given religion are easy to understand, and accept or reject as one chooses; but the more deeply you question any religious practitioner, the more widely will his or her views diverge from the accepted orthodoxy, many even becoming mildly heretical. This is inevitable; it is what makes us humans and individual.

2. It is a ready-made set of ideas, observances and rituals that allow individuals to give expression to their innate spiritual impulses. Few people have the time, much less the interest and ability to pursue the inward adventure of spiritual self-discovery, and are happy to accept something that satisfies their daily needs with a minimum of effort. There is nothing wrong with this, since sooner or later all will encounter life experiences forcing them to deeper enquiry. Such is the course and purpose of human life.

Not all religions are spiritual. The Abrahamic religions dictate surrender to and worship of a "Supreme Deity" that is merely an interpreted construct of their inherited traditions. As all practitioners of spiritual traditions will know, this can never lead to the awareness of one's own inner spiritual nature, and is a sure path into delusion and despair. Buddhism, correctly practised, well serves the latter requirement. In times past it also served the former; but, being an evolving human practice, inevitably falls victim to the trends of the day, usually to its detriment.

I'm firmly of the belief that it's past time for Buddhism to undergo a renaissence. As the article makes clear, too many present-day attitudes and practices have now diverged so far from doctrine - and even common-sense - as to be actively detrimental, both to individuals and to Buddhism itself. My own interests centre on forming a marriage of Buddhist philosophy (as differentiated from its religious aspects) and the constructive aspects of modern Western Science.

> parents expect their son to become a monk at least once in a lifetime.

One of the most valuable features of Buddhism, as distinct from other religions, is the ability to enter the religious life for a finite period instead of as a life-time commitment. Properly instituted, this should allow, for example, a businessman in his thirties to set aside funds for his wife and children's ongoing support, and enter a monastery for a year or two. He would very likely emerge, not only with a joyfully renewed relationship with his wife and family, but with a greatly enlarged perspective on his business activities and their wider social consequences. This sort of thing might very well be the needed antidote to the suffocating dominance and corruption of the Transnational Corporatism that is destroying our planet, our societies, and increasing numbers of personal lives.

[KarenBravo]

Seeing the future implies that the whole universe is like clock-work and that the future events are "set".

This has been disproved by the hard science of quantum mechanics.

In other words, anyone that claims they can "see the future", is full of caca.

Actually Quantum mechanics isn't hard science which is why its called mechanics. And time is an unknown factor, described as a dimension. However to mathematically explain the cosmos you need eleven or more dimensions which could imply there are 'lateral' and 'vertical' dimensions of time, albeit potential or unfolded. It is entirely possible that precognition is real.

Quantum Mechanics is also called Quantum Physics.

The significance to the word "mechanics" that you state is also hokum. Do you just make this stuff up?

Edited July 11, 2013 by KarenBravo

[Neeranam]

Seeing the future implies that the whole universe is like clock-work and that the future events are "set".

This has been disproved by the hard science of quantum mechanics.

In other words, anyone that claims they can "see the future", is full of caca.

I believe time is cyclic, so they are actually seeing what has already happened.

[KarenBravo]

Huh?

Please explain.

[Several]

ERROR

wierd things happening with my posts since update of app

Me too.

[culicine]

There's nothing wrong with Buddhism, per se, but people. Human frailties don't mix well with religion of any kind.

[Several]

 

Seeing the future implies that the whole universe is like clock-work and that the future events are "set".

 

This has been disproved by the hard science of quantum mechanics.

 

In other words, anyone that claims they can "see the future", is full of caca.

Actually Quantum mechanics isn't hard science which is why its called mechanics. And time is an unknown factor, described as a dimension. However to mathematically explain the cosmos you need eleven or more dimensions which could imply there are 'lateral' and 'vertical' dimensions of time, albeit potential or unfolded. It is entirely possible that precognition is real.

 

Quantum Mechanics is also called Quantum Physics.

The significance to the word "mechanics" that you state is also hokum. Do you just make this stuff up? 

Its called mechanics because, if I recall, none or little of it can be experimentally proven. Its all math. And math can prove just about anything you expect to find. You'll find physicists generally don't refer to it as 'quantum physics'. But hey, I find it interesting. I take everything I hear with a pinch of salt though, as Buddha advised.

The significance of the words "hokum" and "ca ca" are a bit fuzzy. Are those scientific terms?

[Several]

I beg to differ. Quantum mechanics is a hard science.

 

The definition of a hard science is:-

 

features often cited as characteristic of hard science include: producing testable predictions; performing physical controlled experiments; relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models; a high degree of accuracy and objectivity; and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.

 

The validity of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle proves that the universe is not a clockwork model, so therefore clairvoyance is crap.

Based entirely on the assumption time is an arrow. Buddha frequentlt referred to the past and future lives of those he met. I have personally known someone who gave verifiable information on a previous life. And I know your position is flawed from personal experience. I relayed the contents of a dream to others moments before the events unfolded verbatim. Totally random, unrepeatable event. I am not claiming supernatural powers. I am claiming that your assumption is based on reasonable-sounding arguments, mine from direct experience.

Ergo, there are more things in heaven and earth (etc), and, Buddha was right.

[fabianfred]

"Naturally I have no proof of this, and haven't personally seen or experienced him do...reading stories about his life written by those who I'm sure would never lie..."

And thus do all manner of religions - no matter how absurd their claims - exist.

The Buddha didn't recommend that sort of credulity, I don't think.

PS: I think it somewhat presumptuous to proclaim someone arahant. And isn't LP Jaran big on magic amulets? Future telling...I think he once predicted Abhisit would have two terms but I might be wrong about that...

I guess I'd better stop or I'll wind up snoring like a pig or something worse...

Definately not LP jaran if you are talking about amulets etc.

And his knowing a persons karma and past lives is not something he would boast about...but use these experiences when teaching.

The future can be predicted.....as long as you realise that it is only probabilities that may happen....not certainties....the future is uncertain.

[Several]

Just to say something about the actual topic, I feel that Buddhism is as an institution straying from the path and pandering to the expectations of the laity. Some individuals are taking advantage of this. Locals here believe this monastery has ghosts. I cannot convince them ghosts do not exist, but I have told them that if the dogs aren't freaking out then there are no ghosts and all is well. But they still won't come near the place after dark. I also refuse to give 'lucky numbers' for lottery enthusiasts and tell them to earn the money and drink less. But these beliefs are ingrained. So if Thai Buddhism does not undergo some sort of reformation I think it will continue to decline. Working together a reformed religion and education system could change the future of Thailand, replacing superstition with informed investigation. Otherwise Thailand will become increasingly alienated from the rest of the modrrn world.

[KarenBravo]

Seeing the future implies that the whole universe is like clock-work and that the future events are "set".

This has been disproved by the hard science of quantum mechanics.

In other words, anyone that claims they can "see the future", is full of caca.

Actually Quantum mechanics isn't hard science which is why its called mechanics. And time is an unknown factor, described as a dimension. However to mathematically explain the cosmos you need eleven or more dimensions which could imply there are 'lateral' and 'vertical' dimensions of time, albeit potential or unfolded. It is entirely possible that precognition is real.

Quantum Mechanics is also called Quantum Physics.

The significance to the word "mechanics" that you state is also hokum. Do you just make this stuff up?

Its called mechanics because, if I recall, none or little of it can be experimentally proven. Its all math. And math can prove just about anything you expect to find. You'll find physicists generally don't refer to it as 'quantum physics'. But hey, I find it interesting. I take everything I hear with a pinch of salt though, as Buddha advised.

The significance of the words "hokum" and "ca ca" are a bit fuzzy. Are those scientific terms?

Incorrect. That is not why it is called mechanics. Google it and see. Quantum mechanics has been verified by repeatable real-life experiments. It is not just mathematics.

Your statement thye maths can prove anything just shows your ignorance on the subject. Maths is the hardest of all disciplines. The maths is either right, or wrong.

My argument is based on centuries of scientific work that are facts, not "reasonable sounding arguments".

I have nothing against Buddhism if it helps the individual. What I object to is that you cannot call it science as it deals with the subjective. True science is objective.

As for your personal claims of clairvoyance, well............. I'll lump it in with people that swear they were abducted by aliens.

[KarenBravo]

"Naturally I have no proof of this, and haven't personally seen or experienced him do...reading stories about his life written by those who I'm sure would never lie..."

And thus do all manner of religions - no matter how absurd their claims - exist.

The Buddha didn't recommend that sort of credulity, I don't think.

PS: I think it somewhat presumptuous to proclaim someone arahant. And isn't LP Jaran big on magic amulets? Future telling...I think he once predicted Abhisit would have two terms but I might be wrong about that...

I guess I'd better stop or I'll wind up snoring like a pig or something worse...

The future can be predicted.....as long as you realise that it is only probabilities that may happen....not certainties....the future is uncertain.

I agree with this statement.

[SteeleJoe]

Definately not LP jaran if you are talking about amulets etc.

I could definitely be wrong. I have known a couple people who were very impressed with Luang Phor Jaran and I like some things I've read about him (as a TEACHER and not some sort of magic man).

[lostmebike]

This is very brave of this Thai journalist to so openly criticize Buddhism in his country. I have often felt much the same when observing Thai Buddhism.

Before I came to Thailand, I became very interested in Zen Buddhism. I also frequented a Buddhist center that practiced Tibetan Buddhism. Both of these forms of Buddhism taught me many things about acceptance, patience, love, and kindness. I was actually kind of shocked - and have grown more so by degrees - when I first arrived here. Thai people eat meat, drink alcohol! I was naively thinking that a Buddhist nation would all be teetotal. But that lay people do all these things isn't really a big issue. The fact that many monks smoke, eat meat, openly carry cell phones, drink etc is highly un-Buddhist.

The truth is, Thais have their very own breed of Buddhism that is mixed up with Hinduism and Animism, and I don't know what else...Question I have always asked myself (and I know it's a rather cynical one): Are religions just a cover up for base human desires, a way to control our animal impulses somewhat? Is anyone really capable of being "saintly"?

I have been taught by experience never to criticize a monk. Karma has a way of working when one does.

There is no Thai Buddhism. There is Theravada Buddhism.

I spent time in a Mahayana Buddhist retreat in Daramasla, India, where most of the monks are 'Tibetan' - they all ate meat, which surprised me at the time, as did other practices like the Tantric ones.

Tibetans perception of what the Buddha taught are different to Thais, Indians, Japanese etc.

In Scotland some people's understanding of Christianity is totally different from someone in Utah or Rome etc.

Of course Jesus would not advocate the use of alcohol yet many Christian countries drink, a lot!

Live and let live.

Sort of understand what you are getting at but what's your take on the 'jet-setting monk' from Sisaket? Open for criticism?

Certainly open for criticism but Buddhism in Thailand isn't.

Aren't there leaders in all religions that are filthy rich?

Sure their are corrupt leaders in all countries, in all walks of life too.

They are abusing their power and people will and do often criticize.

[SteeleJoe]

Its all math. And math can prove just about anything you expect to find.

There is no subject that I am weaker on than mathematics - which is to say I know virtually nothing about it beyond the basics - but the above strikes me as a truly extraordinary thing to say.

Someone better inform NASA right away...and the Pentagon, come to think of it.

Edited July 11, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[gosompoi]

Thai need a buddhist reform following the path, examples and teachings that buddha taught and wrote removing all the Thainess that contradicts with Buddhist teachings. Lets just call it a crack-down!

Edited July 11, 2013 by gosompoi

[KarenBravo]

As you can probably tell from my posts, I'm not a religious person. Nor am I spiritual (as I really have no idea what that means).

If you had to distill religions to a single sentence, they all pretty much say "do unto others as you would be done by".

What I do like about Buddhism is that it recognizes that unhappiness is caused by unfulfilled desires. It's answer is simple and in my view, correct.

It's easier to modify our desires and expectations than to try and change the world. I don't have to be a Buddhist to recognize and live this principle.

I had probably better leave this sub-forum before I upset the regulars here.

Edited July 11, 2013 by KarenBravo

[simple1]

Its all math. And math can prove just about anything you expect to find.

There is no subject that I am weaker on than mathematics - which is to say I know virtually nothing about it beyond the basics - but the above strikes me as a truly extraordinary thing to say.

Someone better inform NASA right away...and the Pentagon, come to think of it.

Off topic, but a truely amazing thinker, Swami Vivekanada (1862-1902) who was a Hindu philosopher, talked about the expanding universe, genetic inheritance and so on prior to being 'discovered". It has all since been proved by science and mathematics. Look him up, especially his 1893 Chicago speech and collection of writings.

http://www.amazon.com/Speeches-Writings-Swami-Vivekananda-Comprehensive/dp/B008CFXAPW

Edited July 11, 2013 by simple1

[SteeleJoe]

Its all math. And math can prove just about anything you expect to find.

There is no subject that I am weaker on than mathematics - which is to say I know virtually nothing about it beyond the basics - but the above strikes me as a truly extraordinary thing to say.

Someone better inform NASA right away...and the Pentagon, come to think of it.

Off topic, but a truely amazing thinker, Swami Vivekanada (1862-1902) who was a Hindu philosopher, talked about the expanding universe, genetic inheritance and so on prior to being 'discovered". It has all since been proved by science and mathematics. Look him up, especially his 1893 Chicago speech and collection of writings.

http://www.amazon.com/Speeches-Writings-Swami-Vivekananda-Comprehensive/dp/B008CFXAPW

Thanks, I will. I've actually heard of him and read a reference or two to him before - but did he claim that "math can prove just about anything you expect to find" or something that would support that?

[simple1]

Its all math. And math can prove just about anything you expect to find.

There is no subject that I am weaker on than mathematics - which is to say I know virtually nothing about it beyond the basics - but the above strikes me as a truly extraordinary thing to say.

Someone better inform NASA right away...and the Pentagon, come to think of it.

Off topic, but a truely amazing thinker, Swami Vivekanada (1862-1902) who was a Hindu philosopher, talked about the expanding universe, genetic inheritance and so on prior to being 'discovered". It has all since been proved by science and mathematics. Look him up, especially his 1893 Chicago speech and collection of writings.

http://www.amazon.com/Speeches-Writings-Swami-Vivekananda-Comprehensive/dp/B008CFXAPW

Thanks, I will. I've actually heard of him and read a reference or two to him before - but did he claim that "math can prove just about anything you expect to find" or something that would support that?

Cannot recall his words on that topic, read his writing in my mid-twenties & was so impressed it led me to studying Vedic philosophy for many years. However there is an article reviewing Vedic philosophy and mathematics at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mauricio-garrido/vedic-philosophy-and-quantum-mechanics-on-the-soul_b_3082572.html

[SteeleJoe]

Its all math. And math can prove just about anything you expect to find.

There is no subject that I am weaker on than mathematics - which is to say I know virtually nothing about it beyond the basics - but the above strikes me as a truly extraordinary thing to say.

Someone better inform NASA right away...and the Pentagon, come to think of it.

Off topic, but a truely amazing thinker, Swami Vivekanada (1862-1902) who was a Hindu philosopher, talked about the expanding universe, genetic inheritance and so on prior to being 'discovered". It has all since been proved by science and mathematics. Look him up, especially his 1893 Chicago speech and collection of writings.

http://www.amazon.com/Speeches-Writings-Swami-Vivekananda-Comprehensive/dp/B008CFXAPW

Thanks, I will. I've actually heard of him and read a reference or two to him before - but did he claim that "math can prove just about anything you expect to find" or something that would support that?

Cannot recall his words on that topic, read his writing in my mid-twenties & was so impressed it led me to studying Vedic philosophy for many years. However there is an article reviewing Vedic philosophy and mathematics at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mauricio-garrido/vedic-philosophy-and-quantum-mechanics-on-the-soul_b_3082572.html

Thanks again. However, I think you miss my point (and perhaps the point of the person on this thread who made the claim about math):

Math can not possibly "prove just about anything you expect to find" nor can such a claim be credibly used to dismiss quantum mechanics.

[simple1]

Its all math. And math can prove just about anything you expect to find.

There is no subject that I am weaker on than mathematics - which is to say I know virtually nothing about it beyond the basics - but the above strikes me as a truly extraordinary thing to say.

Someone better inform NASA right away...and the Pentagon, come to think of it.

Off topic, but a truely amazing thinker, Swami Vivekanada (1862-1902) who was a Hindu philosopher, talked about the expanding universe, genetic inheritance and so on prior to being 'discovered". It has all since been proved by science and mathematics. Look him up, especially his 1893 Chicago speech and collection of writings.

http://www.amazon.com/Speeches-Writings-Swami-Vivekananda-Comprehensive/dp/B008CFXAPW

Thanks, I will. I've actually heard of him and read a reference or two to him before - but did he claim that "math can prove just about anything you expect to find" or something that would support that?

Cannot recall his words on that topic, read his writing in my mid-twenties & was so impressed it led me to studying Vedic philosophy for many years. However there is an article reviewing Vedic philosophy and mathematics at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mauricio-garrido/vedic-philosophy-and-quantum-mechanics-on-the-soul_b_3082572.html

Thanks again. However, I think you miss my point (and perhaps the point of the person on this thread who made the claim about math):

Math can not possibly "prove just about anything you expect to find" nor can such a claim be credibly used to dismiss quantum mechanics.

I have heard of similar discussions whereby the evolution of mathematical theory and application can indeed prove just about anything and that's the point I was making regarding Vivekananda's philisophical thinking.

Is conciousness & emotions just an outcome of biochemical reactions and neurological processes that will be eventually proven by the laws of physics that are expressed by mathematics. Not an expert, but I understand emotions are well underway to be defined in a scientific manner.

Edited July 11, 2013 by simple1

[rockyysdt]

As you can probably tell from my posts, I'm not a religious person. Nor am I spiritual (as I really have no idea what that means).

If you had to distill religions to a single sentence, they all pretty much say "do unto others as you would be done by".

What I do like about Buddhism is that it recognizes that unhappiness is caused by unfulfilled desires. It's answer is simple and in my view, correct.

It's easier to modify our desires and expectations than to try and change the world. I don't have to be a Buddhist to recognize and live this principle.

The problem with this K B, is that probably 80% or more of your day occurs without Mindfulness and is subject to auto responses (conditioning).

This is where Buddhism comes in.

The regular practice of right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration (all far from being religious) allow one to maintain instantaneous mindfulness, and allow life without being subject to conditioning.

When you look at what the Buddha subcribes (practice) it can be seen that this is far from anything religious.

Wisdom (Sanskrit: prajñā, Pāli: paññā)

1. Right view

2. Right intention

Ethical conduct (Sanskrit: śīla, Pāli: sīla)

3. Right speech

4. Right action

5. Right livelihood

Concentration (Sanskrit and Pāli: samādhi)

6. Right effort

7. Right mindfulness

8. Right concentration

The contentious elements (what happens when you succeed) is something for you to experience for yourself.

Any claims until this occurs are all speculation.

Unfortunately such speculation turns most off, which is a pity.

Fancy missing out on something profound due to misinformation and misinterpretation.

Edited July 11, 2013 by rockyysdt

[SteeleJoe]

Its all math. And math can prove just about anything you expect to find.

There is no subject that I am weaker on than mathematics - which is to say I know virtually nothing about it beyond the basics - but the above strikes me as a truly extraordinary thing to say.

Someone better inform NASA right away...and the Pentagon, come to think of it.

Off topic, but a truely amazing thinker, Swami Vivekanada (1862-1902) who was a Hindu philosopher, talked about the expanding universe, genetic inheritance and so on prior to being 'discovered". It has all since been proved by science and mathematics. Look him up, especially his 1893 Chicago speech and collection of writings.

http://www.amazon.com/Speeches-Writings-Swami-Vivekananda-Comprehensive/dp/B008CFXAPW

Thanks, I will. I've actually heard of him and read a reference or two to him before - but did he claim that "math can prove just about anything you expect to find" or something that would support that?

Cannot recall his words on that topic, read his writing in my mid-twenties & was so impressed it led me to studying Vedic philosophy for many years. However there is an article reviewing Vedic philosophy and mathematics at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mauricio-garrido/vedic-philosophy-and-quantum-mechanics-on-the-soul_b_3082572.html

Thanks again. However, I think you miss my point (and perhaps the point of the person on this thread who made the claim about math):

Math can not possibly "prove just about anything you expect to find" nor can such a claim be credibly used to dismiss quantum mechanics.

Understand. I have heard of similar discussions whereby the evolution of mathematical theory and application can indeed prove, in fairness also dis-prove, just about anything and that's the point I was making regarding Vivekananda's thinking and writings

'Kay. Thank you.

[Several]

 

 

 

Seeing the future implies that the whole universe is like clock-work and that the future events are "set".

 

This has been disproved by the hard science of quantum mechanics.

 

In other words, anyone that claims they can "see the future", is full of caca.

Actually Quantum mechanics isn't hard science which is why its called mechanics. And time is an unknown factor, described as a dimension. However to mathematically explain the cosmos you need eleven or more dimensions which could imply there are 'lateral' and 'vertical' dimensions of time, albeit potential or unfolded. It is entirely possible that precognition is real.

 

 

Quantum Mechanics is also called Quantum Physics.

The significance to the word "mechanics" that you state is also hokum. Do you just make this stuff up? 

 

Its called mechanics because, if I recall, none or little of it can be experimentally proven. Its all math. And math can prove just about anything you expect to find. You'll find physicists generally don't refer to it as 'quantum physics'. But hey, I find it interesting. I take everything I hear with a pinch of salt though, as Buddha advised.

The significance of the words "hokum" and "ca ca" are a bit fuzzy. Are those scientific terms?

 

Incorrect. That is not why it is called mechanics. Google it and see. Quantum mechanics has been verified by repeatable real-life experiments. It is not just mathematics.

Your statement thye maths can prove anything just shows your ignorance on the subject. Maths is the hardest of all disciplines. The maths is either right, or wrong.

 

My argument is based on centuries of scientific work that are facts, not "reasonable sounding arguments".

I have nothing against Buddhism if it helps the individual. What I object to is that you cannot call it science as it deals with the subjective. True science is objective.

 

As for your personal claims of clairvoyance, well.............  I'll lump it in with people that swear they were abducted by aliens.

Ooh you do like to be rude, don't you? Seems to be the main reason for skepticism, an excuse to act superior. You can believe as you wish, we all have faith in something. My information may be a little old and I will do as you suggest and google it all later, though I am the skeptic when it comes to observable phenomena relating to unobservable sub-atomic quarks and soforth. But hey, its a big universe, I'm only human, I could be wrong. Like you were about Heisenberg uncertainty. That only relates to math, the universe itself has no problem with the position and velocity of a particle. Though I have no doubt there is something about that I've overlooked too. Sigh.

Meditation is the hardest of all disciplines. Math is merely logical. A machine can do it. And meditation goes back thousands of years. But, I like math and it does have a beauty and symmetry I find pleasing. It can only ever give the illusion of certainty though, and certainty is what many people are really looking for. Some cosmic datum from which all subsequent statements can be made with confidence. The Buddha states that impermanence is the truth. Everything is changing, everything is dying and it is insight, not logic, that can get to the root of it. Science, being a construct, can only ever be a surrogate for understanding by direct experience. This is why I have never called Buddhism a science. It is more than that.

I pretty obviously said I have no supernatural or clairvoyant powers, what happened to me was sheer chance and highly confusing. "Lumping" me in with abductee claimants is entirely your choice, bearing in mind we have absolutely no idea whether there are aliens out there or not.

[Several]

Its all math. And math can prove just about anything you expect to find.

There is no subject that I am weaker on than mathematics - which is to say I know virtually nothing about it beyond the basics - but the above strikes me as a truly extraordinary thing to say.

Someone better inform NASA right away...and the Pentagon, come to think of it.

Off topic, but a truely amazing thinker, Swami Vivekanada (1862-1902) who was a Hindu philosopher, talked about the expanding universe, genetic inheritance and so on prior to being 'discovered". It has all since been proved by science and mathematics. Look him up, especially his 1893 Chicago speech and collection of writings.

http://www.amazon.com/Speeches-Writings-Swami-Vivekananda-Comprehensive/dp/B008CFXAPW

Thanks, I will. I've actually heard of him and read a reference or two to him before - but did he claim that "math can prove just about anything you expect to find" or something that would support that?

Cannot recall his words on that topic, read his writing in my mid-twenties & was so impressed it led me to studying Vedic philosophy for many years. However there is an article reviewing Vedic philosophy and mathematics at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mauricio-garrido/vedic-philosophy-and-quantum-mechanics-on-the-soul_b_3082572.html

Thanks again. However, I think you miss my point (and perhaps the point of the person on this thread who made the claim about math):

Math can not possibly "prove just about anything you expect to find" nor can such a claim be credibly used to dismiss quantum mechanics.

Understand. I have heard of similar discussions whereby the evolution of mathematical theory and application can indeed prove, in fairness also dis-prove, just about anything and that's the point I was making regarding Vivekananda's thinking and writings

'Kay. Thank you.

That was me. I seem to have caused some problems with that statement. It was a friend of mine, a cosmologist, who told me about math being somewhat malleable. Apologies to anybody I have offended.