God in Buddhism

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Altair

@Phaelyn: I mentioned there is no scientific proof and you come with Gita and other books. That is not proof, but faith texts. Can you demonstrate, without any doubt, empirically verifiable evidence that such things are real? All you (and other spiritual people) have is the *mystical experience*, which is totally influenced by one's beliefs and ideals, like inducing a lucid dream. If that makes 'karma' and 'nirvana' real than so is a lucid dream where I conjure up a tooth fairy.

@Gem; I'm with you on those ''important things''. However, when you say ''the Dhamma'' and the teachings it does mention such things as 'karma' and 'reincarnation', in the Eightfold Path.

I'm the same. If there is no proof I don;t believe it. Maybe it's possible, but no reason to believe. I have two cases for believing. 1) Demonstrable repeatable experiment and 2) I experienced it. The other things like Kamma, well, it's a nuanced philosophy in the East, but in simple terms, if you only plant lemon seeds there's no point praying for apples...

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Gem

Trungpa is a known drunkard, drug addict and sexual abuser, and his school has been a cesspit of intoxication and sexual misconduct ever since it opened, and it still is. This is well known and is not disputed. Pema Chodrin just resigned because a rapist was instated into a high position at the school https://www.washingtonpost.com/relig...-group-leader/.

I also recommend "The Sunshine Report", which is a report on the degeneracy Trungpa and has little band of merry men.

It's not 'crazy wisdom', it's serious harm and I wish people would stop promoting this guy and his dangerous school already.

I think Trungpa was open about his drinking and his affairs.
So at least one can’t say that he was a sleaze trying to manipulate others by virtue signalling.

*

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sentient

I think Trungpa was open about his drinking and his affairs.
So at least one can’t say that he was a sleaze trying to manipulate others by virtue signalling.

*

There is no of defending him against what he did. Too much harm was done, has since been done, and continues to be done. The Sunshine Report lays it out is a very polite way, and no one doubts the truth of that report. Chodrin has also spoken seperately about the misconduct, and this is not an arguable case. If you want to promote this fellow, just that I will be countering it with examples of corruption and debauchery at every turn.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Altair

I suggest you study palaeontology, but in any case it's digressing there. You quote a part of my post, in which I mentioned the concepts that are part of the Eightfold Path of Buddhism, and therefore its 'dhamma'. There is no scientific evidence for 'karma' and 'incarnation'. There are however anecdotes of people who interpret certain thoughts and dreams, birthmarks, or de-ja-vus as ''past life''. This is the choice of the person, to interpret the experience in such a way. ''The Buddha'' grew up in a Hindu context, so his interpretation makes sense in that context. Then there are also a lot of people who simply believe because reincarnation sounds spiritually logical to them, which means they fill the gap in their mind with a belief.

I do not believe such concepts should be taught if a path presents itself as ''experimental'', ''natural'' etc. I've participated in Buddhist meditation sessions. Thankfully not much intrusion of such concepts taught there, although all the leaders start with some sort of ''blessing'' in which they ask for ''all living beings to be liberated''. That's an issue for me too. You see, ecology functions thanks to the dead and suffering of many creatures. You can't have it both ways... have a world abundant in life and then seeking to liberate all of them from pain and suffering. That just doesn't work at all.

' The Buddha'' grew up in a Hindu context '

It would depend on what you mean by ' Hindu '.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Gem

I'm the same. If there is no proof I don;t believe it. Maybe it's possible, but no reason to believe. I have two cases for believing. 1) Demonstrable repeatable experiment and 2) I experienced it. The other things like Kamma, well, it's a nuanced philosophy in the East, but in simple terms, if you only plant lemon seeds there's no point praying for apples...

I do happen to believe in things that have no scientific evidence. I'm cool with Enchantment, because it's what we are prone to as human beings. I don't think it can be eradicated completely, and human existence would be boring without it.

I just wished people wouldn't state their beliefs are ''truth'' or ''facts'', based on what they've read or a *mystical experience*. These sources don't appear in a vacuum. Whatever happened to good old ''I believe in...'' ?? It's the lack of honesty that can bother me.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Journey Of Souls is not a faith book. Hypnotic regression has been used scientifically by doctors for many years to allow patients to access memories they could not access consciously. Well Doctor Newton was doing such to patients and found accidentally some accessed memories of between lives... so he did research on that and the result was that book. He regressed people to the period between lives and asked them questions.

So if they remembered what happened to them in 2nd grade, you would probably believe that. If they remembered leaving their body in their last life and what happened to them between lives would you? There is no difference in the hypnotic state or the scientific techniques used to retrieve these blocked memories either way. But yea one could chose to say the 2nd grade ones are real and past birth were all fake. We are free to believe anything we want. But one could regress that persons 2nd grade teacher and classmates and see if their stories match... but then as far as the between lives stuff, he hypnotized people with many different religious beliefs, even some who were atheists and they all described the same things and experiences.

If everyone in that 2nd grade class reported the same basic events and described the same place, one would be safe to assume it existed and those people were there. In the same way, if all kinds of people from different religions and different beliefs described the same place and experiences between lives, it too would be safe to assume it existed based on that evidence.

But then there is much more evidence as well. Near death experiences, very common and people find themselves out of their bodies. Astral projection, fairly rare but I did it once and found myself in my room across from my bed looking back at my body. This was not just a "mental" experience as when I snapped back into my body it was like I had just ran a marathon. I was breathing very hard and could not catch my breath and my heart was beating out of my chest like I had just ran or something. Very real and direct experience. Fully conscious during the entire experience.

The thing with belief is we choose the more likely to be true. For example, if I close my eyes and see just darkness, I don't believe everything has disappeared just because I no longer see it. There is no scientific proof it is still there if my eyes are closed, but using what I know, I am safe to assume everything is still there. If I have a friend that tells me he is going to Texas and I see him take a taxi, see a picture of him in the Texas airport, I am safe to assume he is there even with no scientific proof of it.

We have a lot of experience showing us we are not this body. We could loose an arm or leg and still be here. Now loosing parts of the brain affect how we can process data and communicate, but nevertheless, we are still conscious in some way. So the body stops working at some point and we who are still alive stop having a way to communicate with that consciousness that was in that body. Do we assume consciousness ended when that body stopped working? Or did it go on somewhere else?

I'd say the scientific thing based on a lot of indirect evidence is it goes on and is somewhere else. But I don't want to write a book here explaining all the different things that support this conclusion. I hit the main ones above but there are lot's more. Even things like babies being born with fully developed and distinct personalities. One baby comes out content, happy..... another angry with face red.... and on and on.

Karma too and cause and effect on subtle levels also can be proved through logic and observation, so can the relationship between thought and experience which proves through logic that consciousness does not have the same source "the body and brain" as thought. If consciousness can be directly experienced as separate from the body and it's mind, it is safe to assume it is not dependent on the body for it's existence, which like other things, also points to it's continuing on after the body ceases to work.

Your post summarizes the evidence quite well.

"If everyone in that 2nd grade class reported the same basic events and described the same place, one would be safe to assume it existed and those people were there."

William James ("Varieties of Religious Experience") and Carl Jung (collective unconscious) accepted such commonality as evidence, as I do.

In addition, if one has a teacher, as I did, who could point one to the direct experiences, then one KNOWS with a certainty that would be difficult to get otherwise and that certainty is unshakeable.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

There are scientists today that are saying there is massive evidence to support intelligent design.

Basically many scientists are now saying the evidence points to an intelligent design, which leads to the existence of a designer, or "god" although science has no evidence as to what exactly this or these "designers" would be.

Indeed intelligent design is the premise of some higher superior self which one may call by any name.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by Altair

Anyone with a pleasant dream can claim this was a past life. Anyone can go ''channel'' some ''spirit'' or ''hear voices'' and claim stuff, but it's more likely they are talking to themselves and playing with their own subconscious. A lot of these so called ''experiences'' work just like dreams do, and sometimes they co-exist with nice feels (Happy Chemistry) and it feels so incredible that we insist we have proof.

An astral projection experience is not about karma and reincarnation. At best, it gives you an idea that you are more than a physical body.

But unless we can actually prove the existence of that which incarnates, and can show the process empirically, it can't be classified as science.

Nothing wrong with saying ''I believe in..'' But nowadays most claim their spiritual beliefs are facts.
Ever saw the video of Deepok Chakra vs. an actual quantum physicist??

You are obviously well-read and research things quite thoroughly as I have seen in your posts on other threads.

Based on what you know, what do you think comes closest to being classified as science regarding proving "the existence of that which incarnates and can show the process empirically"?

What drew me to my teacher of over 30 years was her opening remarks, "Question everything, even what I say, and, if a teacher can't point you to the direct experiences, then go elsewhere."

I can relate very well to your thorough investigative approach to the Reality. A "science" thread of this nature could be very illuminating. Start one !

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by sentient

I think Trungpa was open about his drinking and his affairs.
So at least one can’t say that he was a sleaze trying to manipulate others by virtue signalling.

*

Trungpa's lifestyle was indeed very well known.

One learns from everyone and everything; one can still learn quite a lot from such people.

[sky]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Indeed intelligent design is the premise of some higher superior self which one may call by any name.

I agree with your answer