The DnD Sanctuary

Let's show our expertise on this topic too to give our resident (or future) Buddhists also an opportunity to speak up :up:

Is Buddhism a philosophy or religion? Is it scientific enough to be considered relevant or good for anything? Good in what way and for what specifically?

What about Buddhism's rapid spread in the West during the latter half of the last century? What are its causes? What are its effects?

What's a regular Buddhist like? What should a good Buddhist be like? Dalai Lama, Pesala, Steven Seagal, some ancient saint, self-immolators in Vietnam and China...

As with any other group of non-trivial size - which buddhism? There's a whole lot of variation.

Macallan, you mean I missed a poll option for "non-trivial"?

I find it absolutely common, not to say trivial, that any human ideology displays a near-infinite spectrum of colours internally. Still, externally, it can be contrasted with other ideologies. As long as distinguishable, it's having an impact and receiving influences. As soon as no longer distinguishable, it can be said to have either become standard or assimilated into the mainstream.

These metamorphoses reflect the nature of the human mind itself, but if the people feel certain continuity in this, the ideology has succeeded in a very important task, providing cohesion. It becomes a tradition.

Of course I maintain that Buddhism is religion. I also maintain that religion or spirituality contains a philosophy. Every religion is expressible as a philosophy, a world view. The religious or spiritual philosophy would be a theology, if it's about the relationship of gods and humans; about why we exist, not merely about that we evidently exist; about suffering and liberation, not merely speculations about the wrong and right way, if there are those. And inasmuch as the right way can be followed, either by means of rituals or other disciplines, spirituality has its aspect of science too. Practical science is a way of life.

Buddhism has all that. In addition, it also has interesting history. Despite Siddhartha's alleged anti-asceticism by the time of enlightenment, a disciple of his founded monasticism organised around elaborate rituals and formalised hierarchies, which is a regular feature in several important Buddhist cultures, such as Tibetan, Thai, and Vietnamese. Apparently Siddhartha himself invented sermoning to congregations, and possibly also proselytising.

According to some historians, the first Buddhist empire - India under Ashoka - send apostles in every direction, which should account for Buddhism everywhere around India, as far as Mongolia and Japan. However, over centuries, the original Vedic religion steadily regained ground from Buddhism in India, where it's now a negligible minority sect. 

So, you can find everything in it you want, and this is how it should be. It's not religion otherwise. But next time I will write what is missing in it for me.

Macallan, you mean I missed a poll option for "non-trivial"?

Well, there are branches of buddhism which are more religious, more philosophical, problematic or even more scientific than others.

i dont know if buddhism is philosopy or religion .

but Meditation - Focusing on the Breath , to Stop the Thingking activity .

surely helps to cure my Insomnia .  ;D

and that's all i care about Buddhism.

i dont know if buddhism is philosopy or religion .

but Meditation - Focusing on the Breath , to Stop the Thingking activity .

surely helps to cure my Insomnia .  ;D

and that's all i care about Buddhism.

Interesting. I found that thinking cured me of Buddhism.

Initially I found that some aspects were attractive, especially about finding one's own way and being ready to question established beliefs and even teachers. Not bad for an enquiring disposition I thought.

But then I came to argue with a Buddhist teacher and found, as is normally the case, I have to say, for all religions, that arguing against Buddhist tenets was absolutely out-of-bounds. Like all these things, if something written in what is laughingly called a Holy Book, or sayings of so-an-so or papal decree, then it cannot be questioned, on pain of various penalties, from being castigated as incapable of spiritual thought all the way to sentence of death and everlasting torment in some imaginary place called Hell.

or papal decree

A Papal decree, more correctly bull, has nothing to do with Buddhism.
To Buddha what belongs to Buddha, to God what belongs to God... :)

From bulls what comes out of bulls.

Quote from: string on 2014-01-28, 14:48:25

or papal decree

A Papal decree, more correctly bull, has nothing to do with Buddhism.
To Buddha what belongs to Buddha, to God what belongs to God... :)

True,. I was referring, though, to the one thing that is common to many religions which that the tenets of that religion cannot be questioned. That said I must acknowledge that the degree of questioning does vary (though it is often called "interpretation") from religion to religion and sect to sect, With Buddhism I was very disappointed though to learn their central matter/claim of people working things out for themselves was only valid if they came to the exact same result as had been announced by some ancient seer or whatever. For me at that instance the whole thing was exposed as a fraud.

With Buddhism I was very disappointed though to learn their central matter/claim of people working things out for themselves was only valid if they came to the exact same result as had been announced by some ancient seer or whatever. For me at that instance the whole thing was exposed as a fraud.

Well, I suppose that we both had the same "introduction" to Buddhism with the old thread at D&D. Can't say that I got disappointed by the simple reason I wasn't expecting anything but I thought Buddhism to be a little too rigid regarding aspects as what they call "detachment".

I must admit that maybe it was the particular vision of our colleague at D&D and other Buddhist variations/interpretations to be more relaxed.
Something that surprised me was (if memory doesn't betrays me) a very complex set of mythological texts full of divinities, half-divinities, endless grades and so on with no easy comprehension about what exactly was the message, teaching, example, whatever except for knowing that, at the end, everything resumes to detachment. Okay, I got the message...

I'm troubled that the poll didn't offer an all of the above.

I'm delighted to see that our new home is following the tradition of multiple threads on religion.

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQn0xNpN8WcyITF1WO8jP-6-ZKCGcF9fqcOSg4-5xIuekV_apf6)
OOPS!

World News Briefs; Dalai Lama Group Says It Got Money From C.I.A.

The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged today that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960's from the Central Intelligence Agency, but denied reports that the Tibetan leader benefited personally from an annual subsidy of $180,000.

i'm not sure which stream is Buddhism dat i stick on it.

Probably dat's sumthing like Zen .

Ofc idc about religion things , since my religion is 'Music . ;D

but , The Balance stuff .. is very sane .

i/e if have some Racing Thoughts.

Afaik , Racing thoughts not always good.

if it conflicted with i/e --> PTSD , ADD, anxiety ,  Bipolar , etc.

that will no good,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO , Mind is like Operating System ( Windows , etc ) , in an Organic Ware aka Brain.

it have Hardisk , GPU , CPU , Ram , etc.

when the CPU send commands to send some Happy Memories From Hardisk to Ram , we will feel Happy .

but when the CPU send commands to Bring Sad memories from Hardisk to Ram , we will Feel Sadness.

if The CPU not Work properly to Tell to Flush the Ram , i/e when so  Anxious + Depressed .

or cant Flush the Manic effects
That will be very BAd , usually it cant sleep well aka insomnia .


(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2Fvsfjix.png&hash=8ecac65cfc7cea5247415265a10fae31" rel="cached" data-hash="8ecac65cfc7cea5247415265a10fae31" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i60.tinypic.com/vsfjix.png)

so the Buddhis things usefull at that case.

with Meditate , focusing on the Breath .

to stop the thingking activity , aka --> Flush all temporary Files from RAM.

it will remove the Anxious ,  Racing thoughts, etc  .
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi57.tinypic.com%2F2nvqgdh.png&hash=5ea2530437d2dc66236132d39565bf3d" rel="cached" data-hash="5ea2530437d2dc66236132d39565bf3d" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i57.tinypic.com/2nvqgdh.png)
so everytime , need to Clear the Mind .

just Meditate .

so it can Shutdown the Brain OS when it needed .

i/e :  before 12 Midnight , to go to Sleep Mode.

or just Shut down it at 12 noon , to take a Nap .


Ofc , Meditate is not the only way .

if you got some Bipolar , Anxiety , etc ..

a Good Psychiatrist is the best sollution .

so you can take some meds for dat .

So there are different views on Buddhism even among the few posters who have participated here. This is natural for many reasons. Buddhism is an elaborate religion/philosophy, so people construe or interpret it differently. Also, it turns out that not many have in-depth experience with Buddhism, which causes lukewarm or conflicting impressions.

There's a way to become persuaded by immediate personal benefits, such as the therapeutic effects that Sparta describes. Immediate benefits are individual experiential evidence of the religion's effectiveness. These benefits are different from some distant future or afterlife promises that the religion may offer.

String cites his questioning of the tenets of Buddhism. It would be nice to know which tenets they were and if he questioned them because the doctrine wasn't coherent or because it didn't hold the promises he hoped for. Or was he simply too sensitive to the apparent dogmatism of the particular instructor.

There are varieties of Buddhist sects that really don't even try to make logical sense. For example Zen koans are designed to short-circuit the ordinary thinking patterns, in order to provoke or hopefully to inspire, spark some enlightenment, if that's perhaps your genre. In Zen, there's a set of prescriptive dogmas too all right, but it's for the monks. The rest of the people are supposed to base their beliefs and practices on symbolism and mythical/anecdotal stories. Inasmuch as I have understood, Zen sects tend to be radically anti-disputative - the dispute would not be based on logic, so, logically, there's nothing to argue anyway.

Some other sects, on the other hand, represent scriptural fundamentalism reminiscent of the worst kind of Islam and Christianity. Pesala provides an example of the scriptural fundamentalist kind of Buddhism. According to his beliefs, Lotus and Heart Sutras, which are the introductory Buddhist scriptures to pretty much the entire Western world, are bogus texts and should be suppressed, not studied, not believed. The fact that the texts lay out a path to follow that has been successfully followed by many doesn't matter to him.

I haven't met any Buddhists ever, so I have no experience with real-life modern-day Buddhism, and also no grudges against any Buddhist instructor for any reason. I am not group-driven anyway, never was. However, I am aware of the history of the religion and of the culture that it's spreading around the world - by reading about it. My own spirituality stems from individual experience, from personal verification of the immediate effects and logical coherence of the more distant doctrinal tenets, which lead me to make up my mind about the topic.

My personal grounds for rejecting Buddhism are its unmotivating and incoherent metaphysical teachings. There's the teaching of the Void or Emptiness, the locus of the absolute attainment. I find it simply unmotivating. Why strive for something that is basically nothing? Then there's the teaching of non-self, non-spirit, and non-soul, which in my opinion doesn't logically fit together with the doctrine of reincarnation, karma stretching over rebirth cycles. If there's no soul, what reincarnates? Can some expert on Buddhism answer this? Is nobody bothered by this incoherence?

As to the actual practices of meditation, mindfulness, and the rungs or aspects of the eightfold path, they seem satisfying to me both philosophically and psychologically. Also the doctrine of dependent origination, which is a kind of theory of evolution, provides valuable support to inform and spur the practices.

All that said, I'm not familiar with Buddhism through actual practice, because by means of comparative studies I have found another system that made complete sense to me, about which I have no questions whatsoever, so that I can proceed without having to struggle with doubts. Which is how it should be, I think.

I listened to a philosophy podcast on Buddhism today and there was pointed out a fact that I have been forgetting: The bulk of religious people are not converted by philosophical arguments or scientific evidence. The majority of believers regard organised religion as normal cultural environment, roughly the same way as they belong to the family or to the country where they are born. (Incidentally, this is also true of the bulk of atheists/naturalists/materialists.) I tend to forget this because I myself belong to the (statistically tiny) minority who goes by personally persuasive philosophical arguments, scientific evidence and personal psychological experience rather than by convention, convenience, or by attempts to please and accommodate someone else.

For example Zen koans are designed to short-circuit the ordinary thinking patterns, in order to provoke or hopefully to inspire, spark some enlightenment, if that's perhaps your genre. In Zen, there's a set of prescriptive dogmas too all right, but it's for the monks. The rest of the people are supposed to base their beliefs and practices on symbolism and mythical/anecdotal stories. Inasmuch as I have understood, Zen sects tend to be radically anti-disputative - the dispute would not be based on logic, so, logically, there's nothing to argue anyway.

Like that.
Remembers me a specific form of Kendo (http://www.kendo.no/kendo-fighting-style.gif) (The way of the Sword) where you just train one coup, instant decapitation. The idea is that you don't even allow the opponent to fight and by doing so victory is total. So, instead of anti-disputative, I suggest immediate decapitation.

If there's no soul, what reincarnates? Can some expert on Buddhism answer this? Is nobody bothered by this incoherence?

You get used to incoherence if you follow the path of the Buddha. Or, at least, if you listen to what is told to you by his followers.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-02, 20:50:30

If there's no soul, what reincarnates? Can some expert on Buddhism answer this? Is nobody bothered by this incoherence?

You get used to incoherence if you follow the path of the Buddha. Or, at least, if you listen to what is told to you by his followers.

Are there many followers of the Buddhist path where you live? What do they tell? And no, I will never get used to incoherence. Whether I discover some mistake of my own or it's other people who don't make sense, I never got used to it.

On a certain irc network, I am a regular member of #buddhism channel, but I tend to know more about Buddhism than everybody else there combined (no, I'm not op or mod there). Makes me wonder how and why those channels get set up.

My information on Buddhism comes largely from secondary and tertiary sources. I have read two PDF files from Pesala's site and I have a tiny Buddhist book at home, Santideva's Bodhicharyavatara, which I haven't read.

Pesala is the directest contact with Buddhism I have had. He represents Theravada. Tibetan Buddhism is another important sect. And of course everybody knows Zen. I'm honestly interested if there's anything more I should know. And astonished that the folks at #buddhism don't seem to know even this much.

Do Buddhists have a Pope? Can I come back as a DnD Administrator?

Are there many followers of the Buddhist path where you live?

No, almost none.

What do they tell?

Nothing. Some keep on saying Hare Krishna and nothing else.
I don't know if they are Buddhists but they seem so.

I have read two PDF files from Pesala's site

I have read a lot of posts he posted. It was enough.
But I regret that there is no Buddhists here to defense themselves from my (our?) criticisms.

Maybe they are already so detached they don't pay attention anymore to forums...

Do Buddhists have a Pope?

Sort of.

Can I come back as a DnD Administrator?

No. You'll never come back.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-04, 17:38:46

What do they tell?

Nothing. Some keep on saying Hare Krishna and nothing else.
I don't know if they are Buddhists but they seem so.

Those are a Hinduist sect, not Buddhist.

Hinduism comes in many forms. In its subtlest form it's barely distinguishable from Buddhism, but the teachings on spirit and soul are exactly what solidly keeps Hinduism apart from Buddhism. According to tolerant and inclusive Hinduist view, Buddhist are heterodox Hinduism, as opposed to orthodox.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-04, 17:38:46

I have read two PDF files from Pesala's site

I have read a lot of posts he posted. It was enough.
But I regret that there is no Buddhists here to defense themselves from my (our?) criticisms.

Maybe they are already so detached they don't pay attention anymore to forums...

At least one (former closet) Buddhist has already spoken out in this thread. I hope there will be more.

I just found out that Sang is a closet Buddhist. He once agreed with Pesala
http://my.opera.com/lounge/forums/findpost.pl?id=370396

Quote

Originally posted by Pesala


My explanation would be, “If, by God, you mean something transcending the material realm, which is eternal, real, and that can be experienced by the wise, then I would say that there is.”

However, if, by God, you mean a supreme being who controls the destiny of individuals, who created the world and all beings in it, and who will judge those beings after their death, then I would say “That is not God, but the law of kamma.”

That sounds about right

Belfrager, how does this view seem to you?

Belfrager, how does this view seem to you?

I suppose you mean Pesala's views not Sanguinemoon's, even if he agrees.

Such views seems to me too much basic and superficial for any candidate for a serious theology. 
Besides, I don't know what is the "law of kamma" and even less how it's supposed to exist relating to the concept of God. It seems to be a step above God since it's able to "create the world and all beings in it" but, at the same time, to be bellow God since only God can be "experienced by the wise".

Honestly, I don't spent my time with "oriental mysticism". Never saw anything on it that can resist to a simple logical philosophical analysis.

Yes, I meant Pesala's views. Now, you seem to think it important to identify if the law of kamma (kamma is karma, fate or destiny, nothing too special about it) is above or below God, but Pesala sets forth two approaches:

- God exists
- God doesn't exist

Both equally valid as hypotheses, as a starting point. For him Buddhism is a way of inquiry, i.e. a philosophy, not religion (elsewhere he vehemently denies tht Buddhism is a religion). In philosophy you inquire into stuff, starting with hypotheses.

And in this quote, there's no completed analysis, no conclusion. This is why there's no answer to if God is above or below fate, because there's no answer in this brief quote which one of the hypotheses gets confirmed.

By and large I agree with what Pesala says here, but I'm sure my agreement is different than Sang's (and indeed different from Pesala's other views). I agree that there should be a proper inquiry which crucially depends on the clarity of definitions and earnestness of the seeker, but the inquiry leads to a conclusion. As a result, one of the hypotheses becomes confirmed or the concept of God becomes settled beyond doubt, and the seeker becomes "wise". Theology is found at the conclusion point, not at the starting point.

So I agree in broad strokes, but, knowing more about Pesala, about Buddhism, and about spirituality in general, inquiry shold logically be just a phase, a method. The goal is different. The ultimate wisdom is in the goal.

You didn't answer my question!

You hadn't asked the proper question.

R.Sheckley

Honestly, I don't spent my time with "oriental mysticism". Never saw anything on it that can resist to a simple logical philosophical analysis.

I forgot to say that organized religions are man's made things. Christ never made any Church, he told to Peter go and make my Church.
As a man made reality, religion has necessarily a Cultural nature and Buddhism specifically seems to me to have his boundaries and limits closed inside it's cultural sphere not going outside it towards a Divine nature. It has , as you say, all the traces of a religion but not the philosophical logic quest that characterizes Christianism.

Karma or fate, fatalism, can and in my opinion should be equated into a metaphysical quest and not just presented as a cultural trace.

- God exists
- God doesn't exist

The proper statement is...

Man exists, therefore gods exist.

As @String has mentioned, I also have found Buddhism to be nice in some aspects, but it rubs be the wrong way when discussing it with so-called "teachers".

For instance, in SE Asia, Buddhists and Muslims constantly clash. From the perspective of the Buddhism I looked into, Buddhism and clash should never be in the same sentence.

Then again, a man created this most interesting philosophy, and if man has proven nothing else, it's that he can find a way to eventually corrupt it too.

In keeping with the attitude of scientific inquiry, I see no place for the notion that the proclaimer of some truth should be the embodiment of the same truth or be generally likable to hearers.

Truth is what it is, whether you like it or not. Just like at school you learn facts from teachers, but you don't have to like the teacher - and the teacher may be ignorant of other aspects of life, even of the other aspects of the subject she is teaching -, I don't understand how people demand anything more from religious teachers.

Truth is what it is, and personalities are entirely distinct from it. If you want truth, why let the teacher or preacher become an obstacle, rather than a stepping stone?

What exactly are you talking about?

Don't ask me!

(https://fbcdn-photos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/45970_580913528611970_905358704_a.jpg)

well ..
not only Buddhis that have meditation things .

Hindi , Daoism   ,  etc .. also have meditation / relaxation things , blah blah ..


for some reasons , i donot believe religion  .

some Buddhis philosophy is sane .

but buddhis as religion is insane .

i maybe Wrong ,

but it seems ..
There is no Sane Religion , since religion it self is insane .

::)

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then leave Buddhism and follow the Science ."

-The Dalai Lama

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then leave Buddhism and follow the Science ."

-The Dalai Lama

Do you mean that Tibetan fraud?
http://www.examiner.com/article/is-the-dalai-lama-a-monumental-fraud (http://www.examiner.com/article/is-the-dalai-lama-a-monumental-fraud)

Wally has reached Buddhist nirvana (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fdilbert.com%2Fdyn%2Fstr_strip%2F000000000%2F00000000%2F0000000%2F200000%2F00000%2F9000%2F400%2F209436%2F209436.strip.zoom.gif&hash=4f83dbcfd713da153d2d412870c58692" rel="cached" data-hash="4f83dbcfd713da153d2d412870c58692" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/00000/9000/400/209436/209436.strip.zoom.gif)

Apparently Wally's a Tibetan monk.

To the best of my knowledge [Pesala]'s a Buddhist living in the UK.

Russian Buddhist?:D

Russian Buddhist?:D

"Bhikkhu Pesala is an English monk, ordained at Oxford by Venerable Mahāsi Sayādaw in 1979 during the Sayādaw’s missionary tour of the West."
His website http://www.aimwell.org/

In addition to having dedicated his life to Theravada Buddhism (as I have understood, he has an real organisation or community formed around his own person) he has also been a very prominent character on Opera forums. No traces of Russianism.

(Frenzie, is it possible to attach the last three posts - including this here - to Buddhism thread instead?)

China Bans Reincarnation Without Government Permission (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/22/china-bans-reincarnation-_n_61444.html)

At 72, the Dalai Lama, who has lived in India since 1959, is beginning to plan his succession, saying that he refuses to be reborn in Tibet so long as it's under Chinese control. Assuming he's able to master the feat of controlling his rebirth, as Dalai Lamas supposedly have for the last 600 years, the situation is shaping up in which there could be two Dalai Lamas: one picked by the Chinese government, the other by Buddhist monks.

AFAIK, two lines of Lamas - Chinese in Tibet and Tibetan abroad - is already a reality, just not the case yet with Dalai Lama.

China is a totalitarian, dictatorship regime with no respect soever for freedom of religion or anything else, including the human life.

Besides the Dalai Lama and the right of Tibetan people to chose their own destiny and spiritual leadership, Chinese authorities have created a false pseudo Catholic church, with pseudo bishops nominated by the Communist Party that was never recognized, it is not recognized and never will be recognized by His Sanctity, the Pope.

It's a shame what the western world accepts, in the name of money and profits to companies, respecting to China.

@Belfrager
What exactly makes the Chinese Catholic bishops pseudo? Just that the Pope hasn't acknowledged the church? Has the Chinese Catholic Church ever been recognised by Vatican? Pre-revolution perhaps? What are the Chinese authorities doing wrong? Does the bishops' reincarnation order need improvement? What I know about Soviet era churches, some say all priests had to serve as KGB snitches. Something similar going on in China?

Seriously, what do you think about the doctrine of reincarnation? Does it ring a bell? Move a nerve? Boggle the mind?

What exactly makes the Chinese Catholic bishops pseudo?

It's a political farce and an attempt by the Chinese authorities to manipulate the Catholic Church.

Just that the Pope hasn't acknowledged the church?

"Just" is a wrong adjective. Nothing happens in the Catholic Church without the Pope's admittance. And that's how you can manage one billion followers. We are not protestants, where any idiot can create a "church".

Has the Chinese Catholic Church ever been recognised by Vatican?

No, it's a false church without any liaison to Catholicism, an ambush made by the Chinese Communist Party to control Catholic followers.

This is enough so you can understand my position against the Chinese authorities.

Seriously, what do you think about the doctrine of reincarnation?

The soul is immortal and reincarnation it's a childish dream.
Whilst buddhism claims an endless  series of reincarnation so, supposedly,  the soul can evolve, Catholicism defends Forgiveness and that God is Love.
After physical death, God welcomes you and sets you free.
Free from everything, an endless state of spiritual existence. If it was not like this, God would not be God.

That's why Jesus Christ, God made human, the Son in the Catholic Holy Trinity - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - come to earth, to suffer this earthly living, to suffer by all our sins, and show to all of those that suffers that there is Hope.

Churches are permitted in that totalitarian nightmare but under close controls even when allowing new buildings. Outwiththose tight things you are in trouble so Belfrager does have a case.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-11, 14:22:10

Seriously, what do you think about the doctrine of reincarnation?

The soul is immortal and reincarnation it's a childish dream.
Whilst buddhism claims an endless  series of reincarnation so, supposedly,  the soul can evolve, Catholicism defends Forgiveness and that God is Love. After physical death, God welcomes you and sets you free.

As I have said earlier in this thread, there's no soul in Buddhism. Consequently, I don't know what the purpose of reincarnation is for Buddhists.

Reincarnation makes sense in conjunction with the soul, but doesn't make sense without soul. Reincarnation is not too different from resurrection. The concept of soul is necessary for resurrection too. Reincarnation is serial resurrection :)

Except that resurrection implies the same body and reincarnation implies a different body.

So those whose body has completely decayed cannot resurrect? How does it work exactly?

Does it? Are you asking me? :left: :right:
Last time I checked, resurrection of adults wouldn't work on fetuses. That would be called reincarnation.

You are from a Catholic country, not a heretical Protestant, so yes, I am asking you. You are the expert of the true papal faith today.

How does resurrection work when the body has decayed? Does it really have to be the same body or will it be okay when it's similar enough?

So call me a heretic Protestant atheist living in a Catholic country. You better ask Belfrager on that.
My answer is quite obvious: there's no such thing as resurrection. Neither reincarnation. This is not a problem to me. And, as I stated before, that was not a problem in ancient Judaism as well.

So call me a heretic Protestant atheist living in a Catholic country. You better ask Belfrager on that.

He wants you. He wants to create you some difficulties. :)

And before he starts creating me the difficulties:

Reincarnation is serial resurrection :)

Nope, no it isn't.

Only Jesus Christ resurrected, due to his divine nature. To be the Son of God has some privileges.
It also takes some troubles, as Crucification...

Resurrection it's theological domain, using "theology" at it's true sense, which is not the "study of God" but the study, the interpretation of the Word of God. Theology has dogmas and the best we can aspire is to use philosophic and rational reasoning in order to understand what's the will of God - using his Gift to understand his Will.

For example, in theological terms, during the Middle Ages it was believed that the main meaning of God's will was punishment for sinners and suffering. Therefore, it was known as the "Theology of Crucification".
Later, theology has changed and definitively adopted the view that God's message and will was Forgiveness and Love and since then the actual Theology it's called the "Theology of Resurrection" (or redemption).

Everything relating the Mystery of Resurrection must be regarded under this Light and it reveals, at a very clear way, the importance and uniqueness of Jesus Christ's Resurrection .

All that to say that it is not possible to discuss resurrection as if we were speaking about some biological process or even if not charged with Catholic meaning and symbolism.

As for "reincarnations", please, be my guest... I'm all ears... :)

Thanks! :)

And that period also seen the additional horrors of the inquisition. Enough to make one shudder.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-16, 15:52:45

Reincarnation is serial resurrection :)

Nope, no it isn't.

Only Jesus Christ resurrected, due to his divine nature. To be the Son of God has some privileges.
It also takes some troubles, as Crucification...

All that about Christ's unique privileged trouble of the Mystery of Crucifixion is very fascinating, but naturally I meant resurrection in a more down-to-earth way, still completely theologically. Consider the resurrection of Jesus' friend Lazarus or Matthew 27:52. And also I mean the resurrection of the dead in the end days. What's the Catholic doctrine of that?

As for "reincarnations", please, be my guest... I'm all ears... :)

In my specified sense, reincarnation is the common recurrence of personal traits in individuals. From one point of view, every person is a unique character, but from another there's evolution from birth to death, and there is a common set of character traits that undergoes this evolution, and there is also a universal set of character traits that different individuals display to various intensity.

Now, suppose there's a certain known character that has been embodied and a similar character re-emerges elsewhere at another time, so similar that the distinction is impossible to make. This is said to be reincarnation, in theory.

Then for some people it goes beyond theory. People have a sense of identification, a sense of "I", which is a bundle of character traits and, when embodied, also bodily traits. Noticing the same traits in another person of the same era is said to be "twin soul". But those who have a solid memory of having lived elsewhere at another time with the same sense of "I", they testify to their own reincarnation.

Sorting out one's own memory is like reading a book. There are different characters in the book, but one may be so horribly similar the reader that the reader recognises himself. It's like "I" seeing "myself" in a mirror. You may shun the idea that it's you in the mirror, but when the mirror image is persistent, some conclusion must be drawn from this. When one recognises oneself in a historical character to a sufficient degree - and it's not just an illusion, because character traits are measurable - then reincarnation is the name for such occasions. Like deja vu, but in a bigger and more concrete sense.

And also I mean the resurrection of the dead in the end days. What's the Catholic doctrine of that?

You mean at Judgment day? It depends where do you situate yourself. Catholic doctrine it's always made for different intellectual and cultural levels of people.

To some, such resurrection en masse it's an obvious allegory for a moral judgment we all must subject our lives and actions to. Such inevitability it's reinforced by the mental picture that people even would have to raise from tomb in order to "answer in front of God".
To others, it's the pure reality and Truth, fear it and obey to His commandments.
Simple.

Then for some people it goes beyond theory. People have a sense of identification, a sense of "I", which is a bundle of character traits and, when embodied, also bodily traits. Noticing the same traits in another person of the same era is said to be "twin soul". But those who have a solid memory of having lived elsewhere at another time with the same sense of "I", they testify to their own reincarnation.

I think that's a lot of problems that blind faith at introspection can arise.
Reincarnations are obviously one of them.

Introspection is not possible at all, you can't live (experience) and analyze it at the same moment. Either you're doing one thing or the other.
Ah ah, but there's retrospection, first you live then you analyze. Doesn't work, you'll be analyzing your present memories of what you experienced not the experience itself. We are trapped always to our present.

So, how does the certainty of reincarnation fits in? Where does it comes from?

The sense of having already lived before is in my opinion related with mistaken the complexity of personality shaping process and the "I" identity with a pre established believe in some previous life.
Well... people must believe in something. Had been a Queen of Egypt seems to be as good as anything else.

And that period also seen the additional horrors of the inquisition. Enough to make one shudder.

Not so fast, rjhowie.
In theological terms your reformation was very much the extremist reinforcement for an endless demand for punishment.
Where Catholicism was selling indulgences you wanted more punishment, blood and fire. To "purify"...

You were basically the ayatollahs of the time and very proud of it.

I think that's a lot of problems that blind faith at introspection can arise.
Reincarnations are obviously one of them.

Every good handbook of mysticism warns about such problems. And better ones offer solutions how to deal with the problem. There is a theory for everything, so the aspirant knows what to watch out for.

Introspection is not possible at all, you can't live (experience) and analyze it at the same moment. Either you're doing one thing or the other.

This is the starting point, yes, but once you can mentally conceive of the possibility of multitasking, you can start practising it in a little way too. After enough practice it becomes a practical possibility. The entirety of existence is omnipresent and the mind is the organ to conceive and handle omnipresence. Takes a little bit of training to actually live in omnipresence. Theoretically there's no obstacle here.

The sense of having already lived before is in my opinion related with mistaken the complexity of personality shaping process and the "I" identity with a pre established believe in some previous life.

True, the sense of having lived at another era and being bound to be born again on some other occasion is pathological in a sense. But when this sense is sufficiently concrete and there's nothing else pathological about the person, then it can be handled. Problems like this are reality, not a matter of belief. It's like a man with a pig's tail or a lady with a beard. Not a matter of belief, you see, but a problem to live with and deal with. There's this theory that problems can be solved. It gives hope. And a few problems solved by means of the theory concretise the hope.

The entirety of existence is omnipresent and the mind is the organ to conceive and handle omnipresence.

I know that you know that I know the "Brain in a jar" problem. One must always suspect about "organs" specially those that let us to put them into jars. :)

Takes a little bit of training to actually live in omnipresence.
Theoretically there's no obstacle here.

Yes, I believe it takes... :)
I'm not so sure about being theoretically possible. Things may have been done purposely so it's not.

Have some caution relating mental "exercises", meditations and that kind of stuff, you may implode mentally and I'm not joking, I'm speaking seriously.
Madness it's the worst of sufferings.

One must live in the "attraction for the abyss" thrill but never to fall in. Maybe that's where we can find the real meaning for original sin.

Anyway, There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 10:09:43

The entirety of existence is omnipresent and the mind is the organ to conceive and handle omnipresence.

I know that you know that I know the "Brain in a jar" problem. One must always suspect about "organs" specially those that let us to put them into jars. :)

I know that you know about the problem, but I don't know why you think it's an unresolvable problem. The basic understanding that the mind is an organ is quite enough to know that it can be put into jar or vat - and to take appropriate precautions. It's common sense to be cautious and careful about one's organs.

Have some caution relating mental "exercises", meditations and that kind of stuff, you may implode mentally and I'm not joking, I'm speaking seriously.

Thanks for your concern, but to me it works the opposite way. It has saved me from several potential breakdowns, signalled in good time that they were approaching so that I could avert them. There's something I must be doing right. Not to be overconfident of course...

Is Buddhism a philosophy or religion? Is it scientific enough to be considered relevant or good for anything? Good in what way and for what specifically?

I do see the plus side of Buddhism or any religion for those who are so inclined to follow it.  Religion soothes, comforts and consoles people both in times of need and in times when people wonder if this silly existence has some ultimate purposes beyond getting up and going to work, raising kids, facing new (or the same) idiots every day and then going to bed exasperated just to wake up and do it all over again.  Millions of people around the world use religion just to be able to put one foot in front of the other and add some sort of meaning to their lives. 

Some experts think that early humans who held a common belief in something greater than themselves became a selective trait in nature because those who united to such beliefs were more cooperative with each other in all things and therefore, survived.  This is also why AA works so much better than expensive and elaborate rehabs.  The alcoholics/addicts who attend AA are asked to believe in something greater than themselves--not necessarily God, in fact it could be anything from AA itself to a doorknob.  Of course, most people aspire to believe in something more noble than a doorknob and do choose a god of their understanding.   It seems these alcoholics and addicts recover because they are united to a belief in a higher power and they cooperate to help each other—it is their unity in belief that allows them to recover successfully.   

Belief in a higher power is certainly not without its benefits, at least for those who need it, but does everybody need belief today?  Moreover, do people need the enticement of an afterlife or reincarnation to believe?  Would anyone follow a religion if the promise of afterlife was removed—I think not, but why not?  If a god created sentient beings only so that they could enjoy his marvelous creation and be grateful for the opportunity to do so—why wouldn't you or anyone else worship him?  Is it simply because there is no ultimate payoff?  Sure it is. 

it seems , People need some irrational reasons for --> happiness .

happiness is not a rational reason , it's imagination .

generally speaking , be irrational  bring the feel , happy.  :coffee:

Logic  argument above with rationality , lemme know your feel ?

happy ?   irritated ? exasperated ? stressed ? rage ?  :drunk:

Nice musings there, James. Except that there's no God on Buddhism, only gods (basically ghostly devils). And reincarnation is a wheel of suffering, not an enticement or promise.

God for People that hurted , can be a medicine .

God for People that Radical , insane ,  mentally unstable , etc can be dangerous

God for People that understand , be Nothing .

Nice musings there, James. Except that there's no God on Buddhism, only gods (basically ghostly devils). And reincarnation is a wheel of suffering, not an enticement or promise.

I'm aware of that, although I don't know a lot about Buddhism.  I assume that by "suffering" you mean not yet having achieved nirvana on earth or perhaps parinirvana.  But, since parinirvana is possible for the followers of Buddhism, it most certainly is an eternal enticement equivalent to heaven. 

For your belief, you have borrowed the eternal life aspect of earthly religions and polished god up a bit to be more suitable to your logical ideations of what a god should be and made god more immune from science (you might even get a small cult following).  But, don't you see that wanting to live forever (or at least, not to die), is instinctive in all animals?  Could you ever take eternal life out of the equation and still be happy or is living forever non-negotiable for you?  And is eternal life even a logical concept?   :knight:  :)

But, don't you see that wanting to live forever (or at least, not to die), is instinctive in all animals?

Is this supposed to be a logical counterpoint to anything? For me the fact that animals have the survival instinct only reinforces that humans should have it in a bigger sense. We are supposed to sort out our instincts and channel them rightly, right? This also applies to the religious instinct. You for example have a very strong religious instinct. Even though you pretend that you have convinced yourself that God is unnecessary and doesn't exist, you go on about it to no end in various ways, thus showing that the instinct is active and you have not found a way to quench it. Instincts are there for a reason.

Could you ever take eternal life out of the equation and still be happy or is living forever non-negotiable for you?  And is eternal life even a logical concept?   :knight:  :)

The survival instinct implies that eternal life is an inescapable concept. The next question is what experience looks and feels like during it and if there's a way to make it tolerable and sensible. There is no logical way of taking eternal life out of the equation and still be happy. "Be happy" has no content when eternity is unconsidered.

Considerations about eternal life look like enticements and promises of heaven or threats and warnings of hell to those who receive them from revealed religion. The less painful way is to figure out these things on one's own by means of self-examination, arriving at an internal conviction, assimilating it intellectually and emotionally as a natural part of oneself, being at peace with it. An analogy to that effect:

When the parent warns the child that the furnace is burning hot, the words hardly ever sound sufficiently convincing to the child. The child may accrue defiance instead or simply not care at all. Getting burned by oneself provides a lesson of a whole different quality than having to listen to someone else. However, to make the lesson safe, one must be cautious when approaching the furnace. When the heat is too great, it's better to stop and take it easy.

It is the same with eternal life and its concomitant concepts of reincarnation, resurrection, heaven, hell, etc. You may be defiant of what anyone is saying about these things, but the catch is that your words on these topics have equally little effect on others. Most obviously, your opinions have no effect at all on those who have first-hand experience in this area. Your constant denial that there can be greater experts on some topics than you are is astonishingly naive, but it's amusing to everyone so keep it up :up:

ersi , is there any chance you doin some "Rationalization " ?

aka , you want make people say what you want to hear ?

Hmm, you are very perceptive, Sparta. Indeed, I like to hear people who know what they are talking about. As for the talk of other people, I should care less and find something better to do than to reply to them. Good advice for myself by me. I will follow it right now. We'll see if I last a week or longer.

You are my mostest favorite person here...and now you're not going to talk to me? 

For me the fact that animals have the survival instinct only reinforces that humans should have it in a bigger sense.

And indeed they do.  Humans have taken nature's survival instinct and turned it into a religion. 

You for example have a very strong religious instinct. Even though you pretend that you have convinced yourself that God is unnecessary and doesn't exist, you go on about it to no end in various ways, thus showing that the instinct is active and you have not found a way to quench it. Instincts are there for a reason.

A good observation that has not escaped my own attention.  I don't know if I am talking to others or to myself about the nonexistence of god.  I can honestly say that I don't know if any human can be any more convinced and absolutely sure about their beliefs than I am right now, so I'm not trying to talk myself into anything.  It must be that I am getting deeper reinforcement for my beliefs from talking to people like you about god--the more I discuss it, the more positive I am about god's nonexistence.  Et tu? 

The survival instinct implies that eternal life is an inescapable concept.

I couldn't agree more and when humans were more ignorant of all things and very superstitious to boot, out popped the idea of a god who could give us what we wanted most.  As humans today we can reason more clearly about our world and once we see what the root cause for wanting to live forever is, we should see that inventing a god to provide for eternal life is simply irrational antiquated thinking.  Yes, it is an instinct to want to live on and on, but as with many other things we humans do, it has been blown wildly out of proportion. 

Most obviously, your opinions have no effect at all on those who have first-hand experience in this area. Your constant denial that there can be greater experts on some topics than you are is astonishingly naive, but it's amusing to everyone so keep it up  :up:

There are much greater experts than either of us Eric, so hold off on the idea of declaring yourself a god just yet.  You claim to be an elite intellectual, so why don't you show it instead of stooping to my level? 

I am indeed very opinionated and I realize that, at times, I speak as if I have insight beyond all others, but this is simply a reflection on how strong my convictions are about certain things.  You have taken me to the woodshed before and it humbles me a bit to think that I could be so mistaken at times, but being wrong doesn't disturb me as much as it terrifies you.  I have made valid points that disturb you at time, there's no denying it, but like a haughty little girl who gets caught doing wrong, you quickly change the subject to something completely unrelated (and no, I don't have examples right at hand).   :knight:  :cheers:

*chirp chirp*  Nothing but crickets in here.  OMG...maybe Ersi wasn't kidding.

It must be that I am getting deeper reinforcement for my beliefs from talking to people like you about god--the more I discuss it, the more positive I am about god's nonexistence.  Et tu?

So you see debate like trench warfare. As bullets fly around you, you dig deeper into your own hole to be safer. You are more hopeless than I thought...

I see debate as a potentially destructive and potentially constructive exercise, like siege of city walls. The destructive aspect of it is the misfortune of being under attack and the possibility of being overrun, but the constructive aspect is the incoming data on the weaknesses of the city, the data which can be used to avoid the same mistakes in the future.

As humans today we can reason more clearly about our world and once we see what the root cause for wanting to live forever is, we should see that inventing a god to provide for eternal life is simply irrational antiquated thinking.

Hopefully you can answer these little questions:

- What is the root cause for wanting to live forever?
- What is the rational modern thinking that is to replace the invented god?
- How will the new thinking help to overcome the root cause?
 

There are much greater experts than either of us Eric, so hold off on the idea of declaring yourself a god just yet.  You claim to be an elite intellectual, so why don't you show it instead of stooping to my level?

Obviously there are greater experts than me, but this has no effect on the fact that I am a greater expert on religions than you are. And the fact that I am a greater expert than you on religions doesn't imply in any way that I declare myself god. How? Because I admit that obviously there are greater experts than me, even though they are not participating in the discussion for the time being. As I am below those experts, I am nowhere near god(s).

By demonstrating right now how you tend to blow things out of proportion, did I stoop too low?

...being wrong doesn't disturb me as much as it terrifies you.

So, being wrong doesn't disturb you. This explains a lot, thank you very much.

As for me, when I am wrong, it disturbs me. It upsets me and requires a correction. The same with doubt. I have always had an urgent need to eliminate my doubts, to clarify everything and to put everything into perspective, to build a philosophy that explains everything and is defensible against all attack. Now I am old and these modest aims have been achieved. You don't believe me? Under my system, your beliefs don't matter. Proof and evidence matters. If I began to care about other people's mere beliefs and plain assertions, it would be really stooping low to the level of blind faith...

with doubt [:] I have always had an urgent need to eliminate my doubts, to clarify everything and to put everything into perspective, to build a philosophy that explains everything and is defensible against all attack.

You want to be God, but know -reasonably- that you can't… I (sort-of) understand; but I wouldn't recommend drug therapies… You say you are old; but that's the middle-aged man bemoaning that he's no longer a teen-ager, I think. Give it (life) more time. You'll get used to it!

Learn to laugh, even when you only want to cry… (Others will be confused about which you're doing, either way.) And, please, recognize: When others attack your philosophy, they only attack you insofar as you've attacked them… That is: Your own conscience is biting you, even as it kisses!
————————————————
No wonder, we've always been at cross purposes: I revel in the chaotic immanence… Only secondarily do I need or seek explanation, explication or exegesis… Usually, things -people, circumstances, texts- are pretty straightforward; too much analysis often leads to a disconnection between understanding and knowing (I'd call it "believing"…), a preference for formalisms that isn't justifiable except on psychological terms: "anal retentive"  is the neo-Freudian term.
Which neatly explains your "personal" reaction to my characterization of Plotinus' philosophy. (I don't think Plotinus would mind… :) ) What I wonder is, why are you so determined to reject a world that doesn't make sense?
Isn't there still enough that's worthwhile?

(The above -of course- harkens back to James' last post in the "Problem with Atheism" thread…)

Even temporarily…?

What I wonder is, why are you so determined to reject a world that doesn't make sense?
Isn't there still enough that's worthwhile?

What else does "worthwhile" mean if not "make sense"? How do you measure or recognise the worth?

These are rhetorical questions. I know the answer. I evaluate things and you think it's overanalysis, whereas your own perspective is constantly lacking and missing the point so you pretend that this is not your purpose anyway. But it is the purpose for me. And I am not inventing or imagining this purpose. It's really how I am. And if neo-Freudians think "analysis" and "anal" have a tight subconscious connection because they sound the same, let them. They are grossly overlooking that English is only my fourth language or so, but this is understandable, as analysis is not their purpose, evidently...

You are right on one thing: We are here at cross-purposes. But I knew this too. Really, I have achieved my modest purpose in this life. Time to move on.

Hence afterlife. Please refute afterlife someone so I can stop believing in it. Except that I don't believe in it. There are ways to get to know about it, whoever wants to really find out beyond doubt.

if neo-Freudians think "analysis" and "anal" have a tight subconscious connection because they sound the same

Come now, ersi, even you know that a happenstance like "similar sound" plays no part in the term's meaning…
Your English has greatly improved over the last few years. It is very good. Yet you imply an in-facility, to avoid an obvious criticism…? :) But -perhaps- you speak much the same, in whatever language you use.

BTW: Melodrama doesn't suit you. Write some poetry, instead!

I refuse to believe you didn't recognise a glaringly obvious joke by a linguist. Plus it's a direct extension on your own words. Have I mentioned that reductio ad absurdum is my favourite technique of detecting fallacies, to moderate my own thought process and others' reasoning?

In our culture we don't say "just kidding" at every turn. Hardly ever, really. This probably complicates things for you, but makes it funnier for me. I will keep it this way :)

…everyone's a comedian!  :doh:


Do you remember an origins of language thread back on MyOpera, started by jax? A few posts there mentioned Pirahã (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_language)… What, as a linguist, is your opinion about the possibility of a language without recursion?

Hopefully you can answer these little questions:

- What is the root cause for wanting to live forever?
- What is the rational modern thinking that is to replace the invented god?
- How will the new thinking help to overcome the root cause?

It certainly must be quite apparent to you as to how I will answer these questions, but....

- The survival instinct to want to live on and on, found in all animals and insects, but interpreted to the point of absurdity by conscience humans simply because they could. 
- Rational and empirically based scientific discoveries contrary to the necessity of the invented god.
- It can't--science can only rationalize it in the minds of those who are open to understanding new things. 

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-20, 15:42:17 (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=140.msg23862#msg23862)...being wrong doesn't disturb me as much as it terrifies you.

So, being wrong doesn't disturb you. This explains a lot, thank you very much.

As for me, when I am wrong, it disturbs me. It upsets me and requires a correction. The same with doubt. I have always had an urgent need to eliminate my doubts, to clarify everything and to put everything into perspective, to build a philosophy that explains everything and is defensible against all attack. Now I am old and these modest aims have been achieved.

Read the words slowly and one at a time, old man(?).  It does disturb me, but only to the point of the sudden realization of it, from there I easily move on.  I could devise a supernatural philosophy of everything, that is immune to attacks of any sort, in the next ten minutes--what took you so long? 

- The survival instinct to want to live on and on, found in all animals and insects, but interpreted to the point of absurdity by conscience humans simply because they could.

- What is the absurdity that humans have arrived at based on the fact of the survival instinct? (No doubt the answer is: gods. In which case I'm asking what is absurd about gods. Define "absurd".)

- How is your denial of the purpose and meaning to the survival instinct not absurd? (To me it's absurd to deny any purpose or meaning to facts, i.e. leave them without proper explanation. Survival instinct is inherent to nature and this fact has its meaning. Human inherent tendency to attribute meaning to facts is yet another fact with a further meaning of its own. It's absurd to leave these facts unexplained, to leave them hanging meaninglessly.)

- Rational and empirically based scientific discoveries contrary to the necessity of the invented god.
- It can't--science can only rationalize it in the minds of those who are open to understanding new things.

If science can only rationalise the instinct, not overcome it, then why prefer the scientific rationalisation over any other rationalisation, such as invented gods? And it is highly arguable if gods really are invented. Sure, gods are invented from your scientistic point of view, but since scientism's best achievement is merely to rationalise about the core facts of life, not to do anything more effective about them, then scientism seems to have at best only 50:50 odds against any other kind of rationalisation.

Read the words slowly and one at a time, old man(?).  It does disturb me, ...

You said "...being wrong doesn't disturb me as much as it terrifies you. " You are utterly wrong on the second part. I have no fear at all of being wrong. It disturbs me when I'm wrong, but it's a constructive force for me, so there's no fear. When this is properly understood, then it follows that your being wrong doesn't disturb you to any notable degree, when compared to me.

Having been through this line of thought, I answered the way I answered earlier.

I could devise a supernatural philosophy of everything, that is immune to attacks of any sort, in the next ten minutes--what took you so long?

I entertained various ideologies and mindsets for fun during my university years. I thought of what my professors would like to hear and I made presentations and wrote essays from that perspective. This was without any real commitment of course, just to collect brownie points in school. But in reality I want to be earnest and I kept my mind open to the possibility of finding real truth. Relative truth with the tendency towards no-truth was not really my thing. (Most my professors were postmodernists. Postmodernism has that ridiculous absolutisation of relative truth.)

So, yeah, I can also conjure up an ideology in ten minutes and in an hour or two write a defence of it against some conceivable attacks, but a sincere ideology reflects oneself, and a truly unshakable one stands the test of years of disputes and provides working solutions in real-life setbacks. The philosophy becomes really immune against attacks when it's successfully lived.

But go ahead. Give me a defence of some supernatural theory of everything, let's say Buddhism. Let's see what you've got. Be my guest.

- What is the absurdity that humans have arrived at based on the fact of the survival instinct? (No doubt the answer is: gods. In which case I'm asking what is absurd about gods. Define "absurd".)

Eternal life, or god if you wish. 

All living things have a natural mechanism embedded in their genes that makes them want to survive in order to perpetuate the species, even plants because they will grow toward the sunlight in an effort to survive if put in a dark place.  Should we interpret that instinct as proof of eternal life for plants?  No, that is absurd, i.e. nutsy coocoo.  Then why is nature's survival instinct any different for humans?  It's not--if you know evolution.  But you put humans on much too high a pedestal because of your belief in god.  It will only add fuel to your fire to point out that we are genetically 50% similar to plants and part of that similarity is the survival instinct--so forget I even said it.  Nevertheless, it simply does not logically follow to say that the instinct to survive, found in all living things, is any kind of evidence or proof that eternal life awaits only the human species. 

...that is absurd, i.e. nutsy coocoo. 

That's a nutsy definition of "absurd" :) I appreciate tho that you at least gave it a try.

All living things have a natural mechanism embedded in their genes that makes them want to survive in order to perpetuate the species, even plants because they will grow toward the sunlight in an effort to survive if put in a dark place.  Should we interpret that instinct as proof of eternal life for plants?  No, that is absurd, i.e. nutsy coocoo. Then why is nature's survival instinct any different for humans?  It's not--if you know evolution. 

The point that I agree with you here is the suggestion that the survival instinct of plants is no different from human survival instinct. Indeed, all living things and beings demonstrate the same survival instinct. But since you assume that I think humans are somehow special in this aspect, pretty much everything else you say misses the mark.

Also, it's wrong to assume that the survival instinct in all living beings doesn't lead to any conclusion about eternal life. From the fact that you see everyone's life span come to an end, you conclude "All men are mortal," right? If this inductive reasoning is sound, then the deductive conclusion that the survival instinct must have its essential basis in the eternal principle of life is all the more sound. The eternal principle of life deduced from the omnipresent instances of the survival instinct is as sound as the principle of temperature deduced from the instances of hot and cold, or the principle of time deduced from the experience of the past and the present, or the concept of space deduced from the observation of three-dimensional objects.

Nevertheless, it simply does not logically follow to say that the instinct to survive, found in all living things, is any kind of evidence or proof that eternal life awaits only the human species.

Actually, as I just showed, the principle of life logically follows. The principle of life is as sound, convincing, omnipresent, and eternal as the principles of temperature, time, and space that are arrived at by the same reasoning and easily accepted in physics. If you go against the principle of life, you go against time, temperature, and space as well.

Now, it might be interesting for you to know that this principle of life - along with all the rest of deductive conclusions - is said to be "void" in Buddhism. All deductive reasoning is said to reveal the Void. When you manage to build a case for this, i.e. that there's nothing substantial about all these principles I mentioned, that there's no such thing as "substantial" or "essential" at all, further discussion will continue to attract my interest.

Indeed, all living things and beings demonstrate the same survival instinct.

Maybe it's life, per itself, that has such behavior. When we feel it inside us or recognize it at other living beings, we call it survival instinct.
I'm not sure it belongs to us, it's much more (and now a word most here don't appreciate) the miracle of life, beyond rational comprehension.

Materialists should call it a plague...

That's a nutsy definition of "absurd"  :)  I appreciate tho that you at least gave it a try.

I was being F-A-C-E-T-I-O-U-S.  Namely because I don't jump through Ersi hoops. 

Also, it's wrong to assume that the survival instinct in all living beings doesn't lead to any conclusion about eternal life.

Don't you see that you make this same tired statement about everything you examine.  Since the definition of survival instinct has one word in common with that of eternal life, namely 'living' (a little longer or forever), you conclude that deathlessness--of some unknown type, in an indescribable place--absolutely awaits us.  It's utterly ridiculous (actually, it's much worse than that).

From the fact that you see everyone's life span come to an end, you conclude "All men are mortal," right? If this inductive reasoning is sound, then the deductive conclusion that the survival instinct must have its essential basis in the eternal principle of life is all the more sound.

The only thing I can deduce from the conclusion that "all men are mortal", is that, being a man, I am going to die.  The leap you take from mortality to the instinct of survival to immortality is not logical, you are just saying words and not making sense.  One can go from mortality to the instinct to survive to obtaining a longer life span on earth logically enough, but the wild leap to immortality in some  supernatural world does not follow and cannot be logically assumed. 

Can you make a similar leap from the female instinct to protect their young, to an eternity of doing just that?  Why not, you went from wanting to live to living forever easy enough?  How about the instinct to eat, to eating forever or the instinct to procreate, to f*****g forever?  (Well...I might go for that one.)  :knight:  :cheers:
 

I don't jump through Ersi hoops. 

I set no other hoops than keeping us on topic and making you to live up to your own promises. Your latest promise was to devise a supernatural philosophy in ten minutes and demonstrate its impregnability against attacks.

...the wild leap to immortality in some  supernatural world does not follow and cannot be logically assumed. 

I demonstrated it logically. Namely, the reasoning process is the same as when deducing the existence of temperature, time, and space. You are rejecting a sound reasoning process, hence defining yourself as irrational.

At this stage you are not just atheist and anti-supernatural. You are anti-temperature, anti-time and anti-space.

Can you make a similar leap from the female instinct to protect their young, to an eternity of doing just that? 

Sure. The conclusion from this is that offspring always needs motherly care as per its dispositions. This is so any time, anywhere. No exceptions.

How about the instinct to eat, to eating forever or the instinct to procreate, to f*****g forever? 

There's universal nourishment and universal creativity. All these conclusions imply universal life, eternal life.

But notice how in the physical world the instincts are moderated. This means everything happens under certain rules and conditions. There are certain requirements or standards that one must meet, then the effect follows. This is always so.

You are rejecting a sound reasoning process, hence defining yourself as irrational.

Not at all my friend, what I am rejecting is another wild flight of fancy of which you can convince yourself time and time again.  Is it not more logical to conclude that the survival instinct is an not indication of eternal life, but instead of an impending and, quite final, death to be avoided for as long as possible?  Of course it is and besides, I think, for the most part, your reasoning is a spoof, if not for me, then for yourself.

Christian theology borrows from philosophy all the time and I just finished a very long modern text book chapter on this subject--nothing of what we are discussing is mentioned or even hinted at.  Now you might say, 'that's because the bible does not speak directly to it' which is true, but in teaching theology, ideas from philosophy are discussed all the time, especially if they support a Christian concept and even though they can never be made official church doctrine.  :knight:  :cheers:

Looks like the Wzen.org podcast (http://wzen.org/category/podcast/) has gone down for good. There used to be weekly updates.
The podcast provided recordings from speeches at the Zen Mountain Monastery, a bastion of authentic spirituality and mysticism established by John Daido Loori Roshi in New York. I don't recommend stuff lightly :)

Yellow people, Buddhists or not, thinks that white people smells as butter.
I agree with them, many people here must smell as butter, think as butter and act as butter.

Oh how informative. What doe they say other races smell of.....?

Chocolate, cinnamon and coriander.

Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme?

Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme?

My wife puts thyme in her tea. It's turned me against tea to the point where I can't bear to look at the cup.

They found a Buddha with a monk inside. (for two hundred years or something like that)
Buddhist "specialists" says the monk is alive but in deep meditation...

:lol: I love Buddhism, it has a nice sense of humor.

Can understand that Belfrager as lots of statues are the same in your corner and theirs!  :)

Can understand that Belfrager as lots of statues are the same in your corner and theirs!  :)

Do I need to remember you how your lot destroyed our sacred statues and churches, Protestant "taliban"?
Do I need to remember you that there's no sacred art stolen from Catholic churches that is not at criminal Protestants stolen art collectors?

We don't put monks inside statues, but if you're interested in a piece of the original cross or a bone from some saint, that can be arranged my friend. For the right price of course, those genuine pieces are rare. :)

I love Buddhism, it has a nice sense of humor.

Hotei remains an admired friend. (My first wife gave me a figurine of Hotei as a birthday present the first year after we were married.) I appreciate his view of life, as I appreciated hers.
I expect she knew somethings I didn't.

Laugh, as Hotei admonishes. It'll do you good.

[I read a story in a recent issue (within a year or two) of the magazine Fantasy & Science Fiction involving the resurrection of Neanderthals… Does anyone else know it?}

[I read a story in a recent issue (within a year or two) of the magazine Fantasy & Science Fiction involving the resurrection of Neanderthals… Does anyone else know it?}

No, but I do remember an older sci-fi story involving a Neanderthal child being taken to the "present" through a time machine. :P

Well now Belfrager some "saints had so many relics they could have been giants! At the reformation (especially here) we took out all the worshipping statues and got rid of 'em and made the places nice and simple with no distractions. No great works of art at all so no robbery. One wee Scots 'wummin ' picked up a stool and threw it at the clergy man and passed what became historical words "Wha daur say Mass in ma lug." For the lesser endowed "who dares to see mass in my ear."

Scotland had a proper Reformation not like the act of convenience in the separate Kingdom of england under Hnery 8th the great womaniser. Here it was from the bottom up. The Chursch was so corrupt and we put paid to the places with a bastard figure in 4 figures whose parents were nuns and priests. However it was not some mass killing exercise more of a cleaning out of the garden. Very few of the old church existed after the Scots success and they didn't go up until the lesser educated Irish flocked here in the 19th century. Ever so considerate we Scots Prots. A very complete Reformation ours. Poty you missed out! :)

At the reformation (especially here) we took out all the worshipping statues and got rid of 'em and made the places nice and simple with no distractions.

As I said, like the Talibans, IS and the sort are doing. You just arrived first than them but it was expectable, they are six hundred years later, the Prophet was born just at six hundred something, isn't it?

No difference from the fundamentalist Protestants and the fundamentalist Muslims. At least the later uses to explode themselves while the former seems to lack the courage.

I suppose there must be some fundamentalist Buddhists also, but they get so so detached that we can barely notice them...

As I said, like the Talibans, IS and the sort are doing. You just arrived first than them but it was expectable, they are six hundred years later, the Prophet was born just at six hundred something, isn't it?

Pagan temples, sacred groves, etc. :whistle:

Pagan temples, sacred groves, etc.  :whistle: (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=140.94;msg=36474)

Pagan temples were transformed into Christian sanctuaries, not by destruction but by the will of the people that turned Christian.
Others simply fall into forgetfulness and lost their initial religious meaning.