Do you believe in souls?

Gold Barz wrote:

well i dont think reincarnation/rebirth is just a belief, there are some pretty good convincing evidence that we live numerous lives, i dont think that buddhists DONT believe in past and future lives because if they truly did then they would have changed "rebirth" to something else, Buddha makes it clear that he believed in rebirth when he said something about his many births, wandering through samsara, not finding the housebuilder in the Dhammadapa, how can anybody still believe that buddhists dont believe in past and future lives (i think maybe only the Zen do because they dont really think rebirth is important, they want to realize Nirvana in THIS lifetime)

Thanks for helping to make my point, GB...inadvertant though it may be.

0 Replies

your welcome, i really respect Asherman but i dont like it when he incorporates the Zen way into the whole general Buddhism way, it gets people like me who are just trying to get into Buddhism very mixed up

"The Buddha did indeed believe in past lives and he remembered all of his. Zen Buddhism is one of the many schools of Buddhism. It believes all that the Buddha taught. Its main emphasis is on meditation.

As Buddhism has spread to different countries, it has always been very flexible. Every culture, every country, every civilization has different needs, and Buddhism has always adapted to those needs.

Take, for example, that debate over anatman. The Hindu believed that atman was a divine spark, completely perfect, that went from one body to another in reincarnation. The atman, as they believed (and possibly still do, I do not know), never changed because it was completely perfect. It was like a diamond set in a metal ring. When the metal of the ring wore out, the diamond was set in a new ring, and when that wore out in yet a new ring, and so on, and so on. The diamond never changed, the rings did. So, in their idea of reincarnation a perfect soul is in a body and when the body wears out and dies, it then is reincarnated in a different body, but the soul itself never changes. The Buddha disagreed with that. The Theravada Buddhists who live in the Indic countries emphasize the idea of anatman very strongly because their Hindu neighbors believed and perhaps still do believe in this immutable soul.

In the West, the concept of an immutable soul does not exist. For one, in the early history of the Western civilization Heraclitus said that everything flows, everything changes, nothing stays the same. This is an important part of the Western philosophical tradition. Everything changes. A Latin proverb says tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis, that is, times change and we change in them.

Now, when Theravada Buddhists came to the West, they continued to emphasize the teaching of anatman. And to many Westerners that sounded like they were saying that we did not have a soul. What they actually were/are saying is that we do not have an immutable soul. And a proper reaction for any Westerner should be: "What's an immutable soul?" And then we get to a rather paradoxical situation where the Theravada teachers introduce Westerners to an idea that is totally foreign to them (the immutable soul) and when the Westerners finallty get it, the teachers then say that the idea is false. It would be like if some Eskimos moved to Central Africa and started teaching the locals how to preserve heat in the winter. The Africans would not know what winters is for starters and would most likely not quite get it. Similarly, many Westerners do not quite get the teaching of anatman and misinterpret it as if the Buddha had taught that we have no soul.

Now, Zen Buddhism comes from China. It is actually called Ch'an there but the Westerners learned about it from the Japanese who learned about it from the Chinese. And in Japanese they use the same Chinese character for it but they pronounce it Zen. Additionally, Zen also spread from China to Korea. None of those cultures are Indic. They've had Buddhism for many, many centuries. And they are not terribly concerned with explaining to their students the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism. After all, there are no Hindus in China, Korea, or Japan (except for tourists and business people from India, of course). Of course, the Zen monks are aware of the doctrine of anatman, but it is just not terribly important to them.

Buddhism is relatively new to the West. And it has come here from different sources. So, particularly in the US, which has large immigrant communities from different parts of the world, you have temples and teachers of all schools of Buddhism. Their main goal was to cater to the immigrants from their own countries but as Buddhists are always willing to explain Buddhism to those who ask, they have also been teaching different Westerners. And as a result, many Westerners are completely confused. You will find Westerners who claim with authority that Buddhism teaches this and Buddhism teaches that, and many of them have no clue what they are talking about.

And, of course, there also are Westerners who do understand Buddhism. Eventually Buddhism will adapt to the West and a uniquely Western school of Buddhism will develop. I had a teacher who is an American and who studied under a Chinese master and was ordained monk by a Japanese master. His students were almost exclusively Westerners, mostly Americans (but I was his student, too, and I am grew up in Europe). He never talked about anatman to his students. I had learned about it from Theravada Buddhist monks in Washington, DC, and yes I had to first learn the totally strange idea of an immutable soul, just to be told that the idea is false. But my American teacher told us such things as "There is salvation but there is no Savior." The Sri-Lankan Theravada monks never said any such thing because to them the concept of a Savior is totally foreign. Yet, we here in the US are constantly bombarded by people telling us to accept Jesus as our personal Savior. It does not matter what your religion is (or even if you don't have one), we are still bombarded by it, and to me the concept of salvation without a savior was much more enlightening than the falsity of the concept of an immutable soul."

0 Replies

also

In the Dhammacakka Sutta, [3] His very first discourse, the Buddha, commenting on the second Noble truth, states: "This very craving is that which leads to rebirth" (y'āyam tanhā ponobhavikā). The Buddha concludes this discourse with the words: "This is my last birth. Now there is no more rebirth (ayam antimā jāti natthi dāni punabbhavo)."

this is pretty clear...still no rebirth? JLNobody?

0 Replies

Unfortunately...no matter what any of the Buddhists masters, philosophers, or thinkers...think, suppose, or guess about the true nature of REALITY....

...no matter what they think, suppose, or guess about "What is going on here?"...

... every indication is that the thoughts, suppositions, and guesses are plucked out of thin air...and have no more substantiation than the thoughts, suppositions, and guesses made by Christians....or ancient Greeks and Romans, for that matter.

0 Replies

Don't forget the Egyptians.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Don't forget the Egyptians.

I swear to you that I considered "Egyptians" in that sentence...but decided that if I added that, I'd have to include the Norse and native New World peoples....and that the sentence would become cumbersome.

But by all means...let us not forget the guesses of the Egyptians.

0 Replies

Quote:

Now, Zen Buddhism comes from China. It is actually called Ch'an there but the Westerners learned about it from the Japanese who learned about it from the Chinese. And in Japanese they use the same Chinese character for it but they pronounce it Zen.

Chan is chinese pronunciation of Sanskrit 'Dhayn' ie to meditate. Zen movement of china was charged by Bodhidharma http://sped2work.tripod.com/bdharma.html Chan and then Zen took its own twist in China and then later in west. But the differences are minor and mostly no one makes big deal about them. In these traditions people are not particularly encouraged to get lost too much in concepts and interpretations, but are encouraged to try to get a first hand experience. In that sense, they are encouraged to take all the ideology as as a guess, but without being secondguessers. It is the edge of 'I know' and 'I don't know'. A tight rope.

0 Replies

JLNobody

you wrote:

"..regarding my working distinction between the publlic/empirical/logical "vs" the private/intuitive paradigm, it is only offered as an analytical distinction for the purpose of interacting with Frank. You are, of course, right to note that ultimately there is no ontologically valid distinction."

Yes JLN, sorry, :wink: Smile

"You say that "When we look (deep) inside (our self) we find the outside.
There's no one home."
That's true, but is it not also true that everywhere we look, inside AND outside (which are also ultimate one) we find ourselves.?"

Yes and no and neither nor.
What words do we do deplore.
Objects they are not, but pretend to be
And represent
That which is, transcendent

0 Replies

Goldbarz. I agree with you. The general Buddhist literature seems to suggest that despite the Buddha's doctrine of Anatman (no soul), many schools of Buddhism, e.g., the Tibetans, behave as though they believe in a consistent something that passes from one being to another. That certainly applies to the Tibetans' search for the karmic descendants of lamas. You are also right in noting that Asherman and my repudiation of the notion of the transmigration of souls, i.e., the rebirth of individual "souls" reflects a zen perspective. So you are on solid ground when you reject zen in order to retain a "Buddhist" belief in rebirth.
Zen, however, is radically unlike the other schools of Buddhism. It is not attached to any belief system or doctrine. They take very seriously the Buddha's admonition to be a lantern unto yourself. If there is a belief it is the notion that we have everything needed to realize Ultimate Reality--or our true nature. No doctrine or even a guru is needed. This is VERY radical but, AS I SEE IT, the only way to see FIRST HAND (and that's the only way to be enlightened--it is NEVER second hand) our true boundless nature: .
When Frank derides us for having pretensions of "knowing" Ultimate Reality, he misses the point completely. He ascribes to our perspective a frame of reference similar to his own. If that were so, he would be right: we would be downright psychotic or dishonest. Ultimate Reality is not something that one can "know" in the sense of understanding some object apart from us subjects. One of my (our?) fundamental assumptions (insights, beliefs, assumptions, guesses, call it what you like) is that Reality is not one of the many things in the world; it is the world, including us and our thoughts, perceptions, illusions and all. To "realize" Reality is not to "know" a reality-thing apart from us. It is something like a grand perspective in which the dualistic division of self (the knower) and "all else" (the "objects" which give birth to "subjects") is dissolved. We ARE, in every sensation, thought, illusion, desire, etc. Reality, and therefore cannot be said to "know" IT, like I know my wife's name or that 2+2=4.

0 Replies

let me get this straight, so Zen buddhism is a part of buddhism yet they dont believe in past/future lives or rebirth which the Buddha strongly believed in and one of the most important points in buddhism....seems like they're just going against the grain, why do you guys dislike rebirth so much?

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

I specifically excluded using word games or sophism in this area...and I have already conceded that I could make a sophists argument that argues for the stuff I called "knowing" not to be truly knowing.

PERIOD. If you can argue against the stuff you call "knowing" then you shouldn't be using the word "knowing" in the first place.

And if you can argue against the stuff you call knowing, then this statement of yours:

"I know 2 + 2 = 4....I know the serial number I used when I was in military service...I know the name that is printed on the Birth Certificate the state sent me....I know the name used by the woman with whom I share my life...I know....but no need to go on."

is bullshit.

You might want to drop these silly claims Frank, they are polluting your other wise disciplined agnosticism.

Quote:

But as I said earlier...if you think that because I say I can "know" my name and "know" that 2 + 2 = 4....

...then it makes sense for you to say you KNOW the nature of Ultimate REALITY...

Misrepresentation. I never said, "it makes sense for [me] to say (I) KNOW the nature of Ultimate REALITYbecause "you say you can "know" your name and "know" that 2 + 2 = 4....

I am saying your claims of knowing are pure guesses. It's is a belief/guess system of yours, which is varyingly referred to as Naive Realism, and/or Subject-Object Dualism, Positivism etc.

You are making guesses from this belief/guess system of yours and are being hypocritical in the process as you chide others for MAKING GUESSES AND PRESENTING THEM AS IF THEY ARE KNOWLEDGE.

It is clear as day to anyone involved here that YOU are doing precisely that.

Quote:

...then you probably need psychiatric help...and that is outside the areas we are covering here.

"Psychiatric help",..No shame or wrongness in that. Millions of people, from all walks of life, visit and benefit (and are adversely affected) by psychiatrists every day, though not I. It is no longer a taboo or an insult Frank. Wake up! (Wake up from the bright light of day, Very Happy

)

Quote:

But I do appreciate the laughs.

You people who have set up elaborate belief systems...which essentially offer your based-on-nothing guesses as facts....are a gas.

I love to watch you folks try to rationalize the unrationalizeable.

How do you manage to work up the silly ego necessary to assert you KNOW the Ultimate REALITY?

Frank says, as Frank trips over himself as he gradually retracts foolish claims of knowing by asserting he can argue against them.

How IRONICAL.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
I specifically excluded using word games or sophism in this area...and I have already conceded that I could make a sophists argument that argues for the stuff I called "knowing" not to be truly knowing.

Well, Twyvel, I'm not sure that "thinking" is your strong suit.

I explained in detail what I was saying...and if you are unable to understand what I said, just ask. I'll try to flesh it out for you. I promise...I'll go slow.

Quote:

PERIOD. If you can argue against the stuff you call "knowing" then you shouldn't be using the word "knowing" in the first place.

The notion of you giving me a lecture on the misuse of the word "know" is so goddam funny, I nearly spit my soda on my keyboard.

Give a guy a bit of warning before doing something like that!

Quote:

And if you can argue against the stuff you call knowing, then this statement of yours:

"I know 2 + 2 = 4....I know the serial number I used when I was in military service...I know the name that is printed on the Birth Certificate the state sent me....I know the name used by the woman with whom I share my life...I know....but no need to go on."

is bullshit.

Sorry, Twyvel...any bullshyt in our converstions starts when you go into that belief system that runs your life.

Quote:

You might want to drop these silly claims Frank, they are polluting your other wise disciplined agnosticism.

Nah...not a chance.

Quote:

Quote:
But as I said earlier...if you think that because I say I can "know" my name and "know" that 2 + 2 = 4....

...then it makes sense for you to say you KNOW the nature of Ultimate REALITY...

Misrepresentation. I never said, "it makes sense for [me] to say (I) KNOW the nature of Ultimate REALITYbecause "you say you can "know" your name and "know" that 2 + 2 = 4....

I am saying your claims of knowing are pure guesses. It's is a belief/guess system of yours, which is varyingly referred to as Naive Realism, and/or Subject-Object Dualism, Positivism etc.

You are saying a lot of things...but you cannot back any of them up.

You are pretending that you KNOW the nature of the Ultimate REALITY...and it is pitifully obvious you have no more idea of what the Ultimate REALITY is or isn't...than a stone.

Quote:

You are making guesses from this belief/guess system of yours and are being hypocritical in the process as you chide others for MAKING GUESSES AND PRESENTING THEM AS IF THEY ARE KNOWLEDGE.

If you want to think that me saying 2 + 2 = 4 is a guess...go ahead. If you want to think that when I say "The name on my birth certificate is Frank Apisa"...go ahead.

But you really should seek professional help, Twyvel. You are way over the edge.

Quote:

It is clear as day to anyone involved here that YOU are doing precisely that.

Yeah, sure. I have maintained since day one that I do not know the answers to Ultimate Questions about the nature of REALITY...and you have claimed that you do.

And you are lecturing me on hypocrisy and truthfulness.

Get a life!

Try stand-up comedy. Yer a natural.

Quote:

Quote:
...then you probably need psychiatric help...and that is outside the areas we are covering here.

"Psychiatric help",..No shame or wrongness in that. Millions of people, from all walks of life, visit and benefit (and are adversely affected) by psychiatrists every day, though not I. It is no longer a taboo or an insult Frank. Wake up! (Wake up from the bright light of day, )

Glad you feel that way.

Get thee to the psychiatrist immediately...and begin your stay with him by telling him about my guesses!!!

Quote:

Quote:
But I do appreciate the laughs.

You people who have set up elaborate belief systems...which essentially offer your based-on-nothing guesses as facts....are a gas.

I love to watch you folks try to rationalize the unrationalizeable.

How do you manage to work up the silly ego necessary to assert you KNOW the Ultimate REALITY?

Frank says, as Frank trips over himself as he gradually retracts foolish claims of knowing by asserting he can argue against them.

I cannot gradually retract it, Twyvel...if you learned to read, you will see that I mention it EVEN BEFORE I started those comments.

But I know how hard it can be to read all those words for someone like you.

Maybe one day I'll put it in coloring book form...and you'll feel more comfortable with it.

Quote:

How IRONICAL.

What...that you have trouble reading...that you think that I am guessing when I say 2 + 2 = 4....or that you think you KNOW what the Ultimate REALITY is.

Ya gotta be more specific, Twyvel.

Wow! I'm really enjoying this!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

twyvel wrote:
Frank wrote:

Quote:
I specifically excluded using word games or sophism in this area...and I have already conceded that I could make a sophists argument that argues for the stuff I called "knowing" not to be truly knowing.

Well, Twyvel, I'm not sure that "thinking" is your strong suit.

I explained in detail what I was saying...and if you are unable to understand what I said, just ask. I'll try to flesh it out for you. I promise...I'll go slow.

Quote:
PERIOD. If you can argue against the stuff you call "knowing" then you shouldn't be using the word "knowing" in the first place.

The notion of you giving me a lecture on the misuse of the word "know" is so goddam funny, I nearly spit my soda on my keyboard.

Give a guy a bit of warning before doing something like that!

Quote:

And if you can argue against the stuff you call knowing, then this statement of yours:

"I know 2 + 2 = 4....I know the serial number I used when I was in military service...I know the name that is printed on the Birth Certificate the state sent me....I know the name used by the woman with whom I share my life...I know....but no need to go on."

is bullshit.

Sorry, Twyvel...any bullshyt in our converstions starts when you go into that belief system that runs your life.

Quote:
You might want to drop these silly claims Frank, they are polluting your other wise disciplined agnosticism.

Nah...not a chance.

Quote:

Quote:
But as I said earlier...if you think that because I say I can "know" my name and "know" that 2 + 2 = 4....

...then it makes sense for you to say you KNOW the nature of Ultimate REALITY...

Misrepresentation. I never said, "it makes sense for [me] to say (I) KNOW the nature of Ultimate REALITYbecause "you say you can "know" your name and "know" that 2 + 2 = 4....

I am saying your claims of knowing are pure guesses. It's is a belief/guess system of yours, which is varyingly referred to as Naive Realism, and/or Subject-Object Dualism, Positivism etc.

You are saying a lot of things...but you cannot back any of them up.

You are pretending that you KNOW the nature of the Ultimate REALITY...and it is pitifully obvious you have no more idea of what the Ultimate REALITY is or isn't...than a stone.

Quote:
You are making guesses from this belief/guess system of yours and are being hypocritical in the process as you chide others for MAKING GUESSES AND PRESENTING THEM AS IF THEY ARE KNOWLEDGE.

If you want to think that me saying 2 + 2 = 4 is a guess...go ahead. If you want to think that when I say "The name on my birth certificate is Frank Apisa"...go ahead.

But you really should seek professional help, Twyvel. You are way over the edge.

Quote:
It is clear as day to anyone involved here that YOU are doing precisely that.

Yeah, sure. I have maintained since day one that I do not know the answers to Ultimate Questions about the nature of REALITY...and you have claimed that you do.

And you are lecturing me on hypocrisy and truthfulness.

Get a life!

Try stand-up comedy. Yer a natural.

Quote:

Quote:
...then you probably need psychiatric help...and that is outside the areas we are covering here.

"Psychiatric help",..No shame or wrongness in that. Millions of people, from all walks of life, visit and benefit (and are adversely affected) by psychiatrists every day, though not I. It is no longer a taboo or an insult Frank. Wake up! (Wake up from the bright light of day, )

Glad you feel that way.

Get thee to the psychiatrist immediately...and begin your stay with him by telling him about my guesses!!!

Quote:
Quote:
But I do appreciate the laughs.

You people who have set up elaborate belief systems...which essentially offer your based-on-nothing guesses as facts....are a gas.

I love to watch you folks try to rationalize the unrationalizeable.

How do you manage to work up the silly ego necessary to assert you KNOW the Ultimate REALITY?

Frank says, as Frank trips over himself as he gradually retracts foolish claims of knowing by asserting he can argue against them.

I cannot gradually retract it, Twyvel...if you learned to read, you will see that I mention it EVEN BEFORE I started those comments.

But I know how hard it can be to read all those words for someone like you.

Maybe one day I'll put it in coloring book form...and you'll feel more comfortable with it.

Quote:
How IRONICAL.

What...that you have trouble reading...that you think that I am guessing when I say 2 + 2 = 4....or that you think you KNOW what the Ultimate REALITY is.

Ya gotta be more specific, Twyvel.

Wow! I'm really enjoying this!

Vacuous and ad hominem. THE WHOLE POST.

Wow, indeed.

0 Replies

I only have time to post on weekends now and so will be playing catch up for a while.

Asherman wrote:

My belief is that the perceptual world we live in is itself a dream, and that everything within it is illusory. There are some apparent differences between an Asherman dream and the illusory world "dream". Our personal dreams are within a dream, a little playlet within the play. We imagine that we exists as separate entities with character and personality. We believe in dimensions, change and decision-making. That which "dreams" us, I believe, is infinite and dimensionless. It has no character or personality and makes no decisions. It is not "interested" in the little dream that is our universe, or even probably conscious of it. It just is, and is no more fully understandable to us than our dream creatures are of us.

The Awakening Experience is somewhat like what might happen if one of our dream creatures suddenly realized that it was a dream. For a moment that never existed, the dream creature would be outside the dream construct and to some extent realize that nothing in the dream, including suffering, was real. What happens to an "Awakened" dream creature that never existed in the first place? Did the dream creature ever really think, speak or act? We seem to, don't we?

The difference between dream creatures and ourselves is that we are beings who are aware of ourselves. Dream creatures, like fictional characters in a book, are just images with no minds, thoughts, or feelings. They are the residue of the day's neurological activity. Yes, I understand the allegory, but I fail to see the point of denying the reality of our own existence while postulating that some mystical and unknowable dreamer IS real.

0 Replies

Well, this question always arises. I mean it's hard to really know the truth just yet. I don't even think there will ever be proof. I believe there is such thing as a soul.

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

Nobody knows what happens when we die nor does anyone know if a soul even exists. Many gain strength to combat their fear of dying through a belief in a soul. I believe the soul evolves but to be honest I don't think the soul is self-aware. Memories and personality are nothing more then stored chemical and electronic reactions that take place in our brain. Too many people confuse personality and memory as part of your soul but I don't see how any energy could carry with it the memories or personality that was stored as chemical and electronic interactions in our neural pathways.

Agreed that memory and personality are electrochemical reactions. Stimulation of neural networks produces patterns of energy that are perceived as memories. The way the networks habitually respond to stimuli determines personality. The ego/self is continually generated by specific parts of our brains from an awareness of body states, sensory input, and access to autobiographical information and memories of previous experiences.

When the brain ceases to function, there is no conceivable mechanism whereby a conscious soul could continue to exist as an independent pattern of energy or anything else.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

1) Asherman stated that he believes that the illusions of this world are generated by the ultimate ineffable reality. This is the problem I had had with Zen - that there is nothing. The absurdity here is that nothing can 'do' something. If the ultimate reality is that there is nothing - nothing cannot be confused about something.

But if you stated that you believed that there is a reality and all of these illusions are generated by this reality then this is not an issue.

I agree that "nothing cannot be confused about something." But many people are confused, which suggests that there is something to be confused about, and someone to be confused. Twyvel of course would deny this. :wink:

0 Replies

Terry, You're my kind of participant; keep it simple and basic without all that soul, dream, enlightenment, and all the other mumbo-jumbo. As long as we are alive and have most of our faculties and senses intact, our reality is what we perceive it to be.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Beliefs are generally regarded by the believer as certainties, not guesses, and may be based on some facts or actual experiences as well as unsubstantiated premises. Outside observers may deem the believer to have made faulty interpretations of those facts/experiences without denying their validity.

Presumably you are not in the throes of a non-dual experience when you are posting here, and are thus able to think about it and entertain certain beliefs, yes?

Yes, core consciousness can exist without the autobiographical self component. That does not mean that the self is illusory, just that it only exists when the necessary brain circuits are activated (normally anytime we are conscious).

Conscious processing of information allows us to accomplish infinitely more than lower animals that lack the ability. So why would anyone want to hobble their brain by shutting down the most amazing part?

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

One can create a whole religion or comprehensive belief system from a nondual observation (satori) which is not itself a guess or belief or part of the belief system.

When one bases their belief on personal experience, it isn't a guess. However, personal experience can be inaccurate, mistaken, or misleading. In a blind taste a person given a bit of onion may identify the onion as an apple. They base their belief on their taste experiences, that happen to be wrong. They aren't guessing, but are mistaken.

Many people in different times and cultures report a transcendant experience which they describe in terms similar to the Buddhist experience of Awakening. A casual reader may choose to believe, or not to believe, those descriptions accurately depict the nature of reality. Once a person has the transcendant experience, it won't probably be described as belief any longer, but as "knowing". I "know" what the experience is, because I personally experienced it. Now a thoughtful person has to admit that their knowledge derived from personal experience may be faulty and mistaken. Ultimately, we "know" nothing because no evidence of a high order can be provided. We do have a high-order of belief, usually because we have personally experienced a thing, or accept the assertions of others based on mutually experienced phenomena and/or the logic of mathematics and physics ... which still at the most fundamental levels is ... belief, not guesses. Even the most accepted mathematical reasoning is ultimately only a strong belief that math truly reflects reality. 2 and 2 may just as well equal 44 as 4. Angles might be divided in thirds, and the laws of physics may be nothing more than accidents. Probably not, but they remain beliefs backed by some evidence and experience greater than "guesses".

Frank is adament that no one can "know" anything, and ultimately he is correct. I think, though, that he goes too far to typify all belief as guesses. Beliefs that are based on personal experience, or on evidence of at least middle-order reasoning is, to me, quite different from forming opinions on low-order evidence, lack of personal experience, or chance.

I don't know how Frank can quarrel with you over this, since you are basically in agreement.

I accept that you and others have had an experience that produces certainty, but do not see any difference between the certainty of a non-dual experience and the certainty of those who believe that they have had personal contact with God. Both seem to me to be the result of a strong desire for the experience coupled with efforts to short-circuit the normal operations of the brain through intense prayer, meditation, drugs, or physical/emotional ordeals.

The laws of physics and the number of degrees in a triangle may vary depending on the geometrical configuration of space, but 2 objects + 2 objects must always equal 4 objects (trinities are exceptions to this rule :wink: ).

0 Replies

Do you believe in souls?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know