Do you believe in souls?

thethinkfactory wrote:

Frank:

You said

"You prayed -- you walked.

Virgins were thrown in the volcano -- crops grew.

Neither is experiential evidence of the existence of gods."

Let me add more to your list - if this is case.

You turned the key in your car - it started.

You wanted to raise you arm - it did.

If none of us can experience cause and effect in any experiential manner - then your car starting this morning was merely something that occured after the action of turning your key - no correlation - no cause and effect - just action a permanatly disconnected from action b.

But Jason, you cannot be as arbitrary as you are.

Suppose I said, I turned the key and my car started...and that is experiential evidence that there is a God.

Wouldn't you think that to be a stretch?

But you are saying "I prayed to walk and I was able to walk"...and that is experiential evidence that there is a God.

It simply does not follow. There are too many alternate possible explanations of why whatever happened...happened.

Quote:

I believe you are not being rude - I love your candor and your directness - it is refreshing...

Thank you. I am enjoying this discussion very much.

Quote:

.. - however I do believe I am speaking logically - I just don't think I am convincing you.

I do not think you are speaking logically...and I just don't think I am convincing you.

Quote:

I think this is due to the subjective nature (notice I did not say relative) of experience.

Any experience is only valid for the experiencer - period.

Let me ask you this - what criterion do you have that would allow religious experience to be unambigious?

I cannot think of a single one!

I don't think there are any.

If prayer worked, we would have peace all over this planet...because almost everyone who "believes" in a God is praying for peace.

We don't have peace!

Quote:

What would count? What types of experience could I relate to you where you would say - THERE - that is unambigious?

(This is not a trap or a ploy - I could give two shits about a zero sum game with you - I just want to know.)

Jason

But that is the point, Jason. There truly does not seem to be ANY UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE for or against the existence of a God or of gods.

If one is absolutely compulsive about guessing one way or the other on the issue, the only thing one can do is to guess THERE IS A GOD...or THERE ARE NO GODS.

But both are guesses pulled out of thin air.

0 Replies

Joe...

...thanks for your comments.

I wish I were closer to my college days...but most of that stuff is no longer my mind's property. I have to argue simply from the "this is reasonable" "this is not" position.

0 Replies

i know, i also dont believe in the transmigration of souls, i believe in rebirth too but not the Zen way (although i dont understand why Zen buddhists call it "rebirth" since nothing is passed on to the next life), i believe in rebirth the Vajrayana and Tibetan buddhism way, that kind of rebirth, my only question is how come there are so many different interpretations on this

"I'm a Zen Buddhist," I said, a little surprised by the question, "Reincarnation is not part of the Mahayana mystical path. It's very much a part of the Vajrayana or Theravadin paths, but in Zen, questions about reincarnation just don't arise."

He looked at me quizzically. "But I thought all Buddhists believe in reincarnation," he said.

"Some do, and some don't," I repeated."

this is from a zen buddhist monk, i guess theres my answer.....some do and some dont

0 Replies

although i dont understand why Zen buddhists call it "rebirth" since nothing is passed on to the next life <--- Gold Barz

It's because to the Zen, there was never anything to be passed on anyways! You only thought there was.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Vajrayana is another way of designating the Tantric School.

Reincarnation can be found in many sutras, and in all Buddhist Schools. However, it is NOT the same as transmigration of souls. The Mahayana sects are much more likely to drift into something approximating transmigration of souls than the Theravada. C'han and Zen put much more emphasis on meditation and practice than on theorizing, and that is why the concept is less talked about. Endless intellectualizing about it is a deadend, and it is much more important that the seeker do more and talk less.

I don't seem much, if any, difference in the short quote you just posted, from what I've said here over and over. What is passed on is Karma and consequence. The underlying Oneness of Ultimate Reality has no beginning, ending, or limits. Ultimate Reality is the "source" out of which perceptual reality and the idea of multiplicity arises. It is present in every part of the Illusory World, obscured only by our attachments. You and I don't exist except as a dream outside time and space, but Ultimate Reality does.

Cycloptichorn,

Zen is a sub-set of Buddhism, and it is fundamental to Buddhism that "there was never (is) anything to be passed on". There is no self, no soul, or ego. Time, space and multiplicity are illusory. Attachment to the illusion that one has an real individual self/ego/soul existing in time, space and multiplicity is the root cause for suffering. This is clearly fundamental doctrine to Buddhism, and is stated over and over again in the sutras.

0 Replies

how come your making it seem like your point represents all buddhism when the stuff i read written by monks, scholars, etc collide with your view, they say that your view is the Zen view, and it doesnt neccessarily represent buddhism as a whole, they say this bundle of energy that is impermanent does get pass on from life to life, its nothing like transmigration of eternal souls

"The fundamental teaching in Buddhism is 'all phenomenon has no self'. If there is no self, how can there be rebirth? Are they conflicting each other? No self does not mean no life. No self means our bodily existence of the five skandas and four elements. Its existence is effected by cause and conditions. It does not has a self nature. Thus, it is said to have no self. It is like a piece of gold. It can be made into ring, earing, bracelet. They are a variety of forms. Yet, the nature of gold is unchanged. Our existence is the same. We become Henry or Jack, donkey or horse, heaven and earth."

this is written by a master venerable

0 Replies

GoldBarz, the quote,"The fundamental teaching in Buddhism is 'all phenomenon has no self' is right. As I see it, in saying that all phenomena have no self, the venerable is making the radical ontological statement that nothing has BEING, that there are no static things, only processes of BECOMING. Change and impermanence are at the heart of Reality. Within this model no "transmigration" of beings, like souls, is possible--contrary to what Shirley McClaine might say. New Age mysticism is very shallow and misleading. And it's not mysticism.

0 Replies

Goldbars,

The quote from "master venerable" (whoever that is), does not support this fixation you seem to have that the self exists, transcends death and is reborn into a new body. Quite the contrary, the quote fits reasonably well into the fundamental precepts of Buddhism.

You appear unable to grasp what we've tried to tell you over and over here. I've given you a good translation of typical writing on the subject from some of the oldest and most fundamental Buddhist texts, and you apparently again missed the point. Now you miss the clear meaning of a quote that you've supplied yourself. Goodness, knows what you are reading and even if it is really top notch and insightful, I begin to question your ability to understand it.

You've gone from a "B+" to a "C-", and we're still a long way from mid-terms.

0 Replies

How would an "illusion" that lives within the illusion of time, space, and multiplicity know what an Ultimate Reality is? This is equivalent to saying that the universe knows what exists outside of it by knowing itself as an illusion. Yet as JLN has said "that there are no static things, only processes of BECOMING. Change and impermanence are at the heart of Reality" which describes very much the realities of the natural world would this not counter the assertion of the world as illusion? Granted that a continous process of Becoming/Unbecoming can TO US seem "dreamlike" in its effect yet its means of generation are very much amenable to rational thought and do not deviate through random fluctuations of illusion.

Also, if I could comprehend my own non-reality then what is REAL about me that can comprehend it or even attempt to understand it?

The ancient philosophy of the West (the Greeks mainly) have made major attempts to disenfranchise themselves from illusion, to understand nature without the Gods so to speak but now it seems many in the West are using the equally or more ancient philosophy of the East to get back into it albeit on a more complex and disciplined level but - and the question is valid - with how much REAL understanding?

0 Replies

My God - this two different discussion thing is tough! Smile

Frank:

This is exactly my argument against Hume - if there is NO single criterion for evidence for God that counts - do you see how this seems to be removing God as an explanation - out of hand.

It seems like you are saying 'Show me God - have him do miracles for me - show me heaven - and I still will not believe it.'

There seems to be a difference between belief and assenting. Meaning - when you open your eyes you really have no choice but to believe your computer is in front of you right now - BUT you could not assent to it. You could sit there and as a fiat of will simply say - I do not believe what I am seeing is accurate. It is what we do when a plane take off - what we belief is that the plane is getting smaller (because that is what we see) but we choose (because of scientific proofs) not to assent to this belief.

I say that if you give me no criteron to base religious experience on then you would choose - no matter what - to not assent to experinetial beliefs (if you see them).

Joe,

I do not think scientists CAN deduce billiard ball B was moved by A despite thier observation. Deduction is from one given principle to another. The principle that would have to be given would have to be When A strikes B - B is caused to move - this cannot be observed (and thus cannot be an axiom).

You can do all the physical proofs you want - the causal nexus cannot be observed (call it the imparting of evergy that even on the sub-atomic level Physicists are reduced to calling 'virtual particles' - where the effects can be measured but the energy cannot be observed - like gravity and such) and thus we are reduced to simply measure WHAT we see - not why we see it.

Scientists give repeatable evidence for what they see - they then give INDUCTIVE reasons for claiming there is gravity - there is no deducing there. It would be a begging the question type of deduction at best.

For that matter - prayer has been independantly verified to work in the lab. Plants that have been prayed for in double blind studies have shown more growth than others (as well as other studies). We have thousands of independant claims that prayer works for people - but this - because of the lack of assenting to any rational critereon by Agnostics and Athiests - is not enough (because there is NEVER enough).

The theist has assented to claiming that science can get him truth - why does the athiest and agnostic claim some epistemological stature that allows them to not recipricate?

TTF

0 Replies

I lost this post, and had to rewrite it. See below. Sorry.

0 Replies

I sit on the edge of a high mesa enjoying the warm sun as it rises in beauty. The air is scented with desert blooms from a late shower. The moon still hangs in the west, and a brilliant star is fading. I am alone, can can feintly hear the sound of my wife and sons songs to the dawn far below. A pony nickers, also far away, but where? I stand and my eyes sweep the horizon, it is empty but shifing as the light of day spreads downward from distant mountain peaks. There is the sound of a tiny silver bell behind me. I turn and see two Apache warriors blocking my only path downward. It is dawn, the time of beauty and the time when the Apache prefer to kill. Beneath the white stripe that runs through their eyes, they grin. I back toward the edge of the cliff, but there is no escape. The warmth of the sun on my back turns to ice-fear in my gut. Without even thinking, my hand finds a forgotten weapon in my belt. I draw and extend a large orange squirt-gun toward the Apache, and squeeze the trigger. A stream of strawberry coolaid splashes them, and they dissolve into little puddles that collects into the cracks of the rock. I look down at the weapon, and realize that it is all just a dream. I sit up amidst the tangled sheets and remember giving just such a weapon to my daughter twenty years to protect her from nightmares. Twenty years ago, before our own nightmare of an automobile accident.

The Apache in this little story might have seen the squirt gun and realized that they were attacking in a dream, and awakened. The "dreamer" of the illusory world plays all the parts, even the mesa rocks and the sound of the silver bell. In our dream world, what causes us to realize the dream and help us to awaken may be the Dharma, or some other "shock".

But, let us not forget that a metaphor is in the end still a metaphor. Plato's Cave Analogy is not dissimilar. Meister Ekhard, Bishop Berkely, and a host of others, some of whom were burned at the stake for heresy, have also held similar views about the nature of reality, and our relationship to God/Universe.

I heartily endorce your last statement, "...but - and the question is valid - with how much REAL understanding?" Many adopt "Eastern Philosophy/Religion" almost as a fad. Few take the time or expend the effort to actually read translations of the source materials, but rely upon interpretations by flashy Gurus. I think that many are beguiled by the possiblility of acquiring supernatural powers, either physically or spiritually. Another set would like to fully transform themselves from the heirs of Western Civilization to a romanticized version of Japanese/Indian/Chinese sages. Amost all of these are nonsense, but I do believe that we have seen a steady increase in the number of serious Buddhists in the West over the last 75 years. Understanding the nature of time, we can be patient. Suffering and the attachments that underly it will not be easily conquered. If the "dreamer" of perceptual reality, the dreamer of us all, should fully awaken that would be the end, wouldn't it. Would that be a "bad" thing? I think not.

BTW, I really appreciate NTS that you give a bit of thought to your posts.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

My God - this two different discussion thing is tough!

A surprising number of threads on this forum turn into discussions of Buddhism. Get used to it.

thethinkfactory wrote:

Joe,

I do not think scientists CAN deduce billiard ball B was moved by A despite thier observation. Deduction is from one given principle to another. The principle that would have to be given would have to be When A strikes B - B is caused to move - this cannot be observed (and thus cannot be an axiom).

True, unlike a physical act, such as billiard ball A striking billiard ball B, causation cannot be observed at all, but that means causation also cannot be the subject of induction. Thus to say that A striking B caused B to move is to make a deduction from the evidence, based, in large part, upon the principle (or axiom, if you will) of causation.

thethinkfactory wrote:

You can do all the physical proofs you want - the causal nexus cannot be observed (call it the imparting of evergy that even on the sub-atomic level Physicists are reduced to calling 'virtual particles' - where the effects can be measured but the energy cannot be observed - like gravity and such) and thus we are reduced to simply measure WHAT we see - not why we see it.

If you insist upon seeing causation, then of course you will be disappointed. But then you would be holding causation to a standard to which it is not subject. As I mentioned above, causation is a deduction based upon inductive evidence and various principles of thought (including, but not limited to, the principle of causation).

thethinkfactory wrote:

Scientists give repeatable evidence for what they see - they then give INDUCTIVE reasons for claiming there is gravity - there is no deducing there. It would be a begging the question type of deduction at best.

Sorry, although the evidence for gravity is clearly inductive, the belief in gravity is deductive.

thethinkfactory wrote:

For that matter - prayer has been independantly verified to work in the lab. Plants that have been prayed for in double blind studies have shown more growth than others (as well as other studies). We have thousands of independant claims that prayer works for people - but this - because of the lack of assenting to any rational critereon by Agnostics and Athiests - is not enough (because there is NEVER enough).

I'm beginning to lose a sense of your epistemological position here, TTF. You've said that you are dissatisfied with Hume's account of cause and effect, and yet you seem here to take a thoroughly Humean line with regard to that subject. Which is it?

As for the instances of efficacious prayer, I am reminded of the scene from the film "Animal House:" a boy is sitting in his bedroom reading a "Playboy" magazine when suddenly a woman, dressed as a Playboy bunny, flies through his window and lands on his bed. The boy reacts by looking up and saying "thank you God!" Now, perhaps this was the working of some divine intelligence, but it could also have been the working of blind chance. We know, from this instance, that this particular boy's prayer was answered, but we don't know how many other boys' prayers remained frustratingly unfulfilled. Moreover, we have no idea how to prove that either divine intelligence or blind chance was at work in either of those instances.

You seem to be saying that instances of fulfilled prayers are evidence of God's existence. This requires a couple of deductive steps: (1) God exists; and (2) God intervenes in response to prayers. Of course, the first deductive step actually makes your position a kind of question begging: if you start with a premise that people pray to God, and end with a conclusion that God exists, then you've essentially assumed the truth of that which you set out to prove. That's neither induction nor deduction; that's just bad reasoning.

thethinkfactory wrote:

The theist has assented to claiming that science can get him truth - why does the athiest and agnostic claim some epistemological stature that allows them to not recipricate?

TTF

I do not speak for atheists or agnostics in general, but I'd say that science doesn't get us to the truth, it gets us close to the truth. Furthermore, for most purposes close is good enough. I'm not sure what scientific claims you are purporting to make on behalf of theists, but if you claim that science has provided any kind of unambiguous (or even highly suggestive) evidence of God's existence then I'm willing to consider it.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

My God - this two different discussion thing is tough!

Frank:

This is exactly my argument against Hume - if there is NO single criterion for evidence for God that counts - do you see how this seems to be removing God as an explanation - out of hand.

Jason...my first post in this thread mentioned that I saw ABSOLTUELY NO UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE for or against the existence of a soul.

I have mentioned that I SEE ABSOLUTELY NO UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE for or against the existence of any gods.

You took issue with that.

Now you are faulting me because I see no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of either...

...yet you have not produce one tiny iota of unambiguous evidence that a god or a soul exists.

THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY...and the fact that you want to pretend that these anecdotes you offered is...simply doesn't pass the smell test.

My point all along is that THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE ANY UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE EXISTENCE EITHER OF A SOUL....OR OF ANY GODS.

Quote:

It seems like you are saying 'Show me God - have him do miracles for me - show me heaven - and I still will not believe it.'

No...I am saying that anyone asserting that there is a God...or that there are no gods...

...is making a guess based on almost no evidence at all...and based on ABSOLUTELY NO UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE.

I hope that is finally clear.

Quote:

There seems to be a difference between belief and assenting. Meaning - when you open your eyes you really have no choice but to believe your computer is in front of you right now - BUT you could not assent to it. You could sit there and as a fiat of will simply say - I do not believe what I am seeing is accurate. It is what we do when a plane take off - what we belief is that the plane is getting smaller (because that is what we see) but we choose (because of scientific proofs) not to assent to this belief.

I say that if you give me no criteron to base religious experience on then you would choose - no matter what - to not assent to experinetial beliefs (if you see them).

Nonsense.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

NO, No, NO, [size=7]No[/size]

Time is an illusion. It does not exist. There is no ego, no soul, no you, none of those exist. Where do the deadmen of your dreams go to when you awaken? Are they real even as you dream? WAKE UP! Let the dream go, let it pass.

so how can you operate on a daily basis?

0 Replies

you seem to say that when we die thats it, its over, only one life to live, but that master venerable article he says that the bundle of energy along with alot of other stuff hangs around after death and becomes reborn in a way, that there is something passed on from life to life, its not a self, but still there is something passed on

0 Replies

Husker,

Whilst in the illusion, one treats it as if it were real knowing otherwise. "Play along with the joke."

One tries to live perpetually in the moment, paying attention to it alone. When you eat, you eat and when you work that becomes the focus. So long as your immediate environment is controlled, there is little to break continuous meditation. This is why the monastery is such a good place for some folks.

If one lives in the world, works in a challenging dynamic career, raises a family, and remains an active student, maintaining focus is a challenge. Each of the several elements requires great attention, so one is constantly shifting from one mode to another. It is somewhat easier when the elements are integrated, and one understands that there is really no differences from one to the other.

In much of my career, I was responsible for understanding the inner dynamics of workgroups and how they intermeshed with the service world. Being able to see the big picture was a decided advantage. When one knows, deep down that the whole shooting match is ultimately illusory, you can step back a pace. That bit of distance helps in being objective, and so plans are less likely to go awry and if they do, multiple continguency plans already exist to correct the situation. To be a success in the work world, a person has to care ... but not too much. Make a big "win", alright lets get on to the next problem. Take a great "loss", alright what did we learn and how can we do better in the next round. One "games" a giant chessboard with a thousand squares and pieces that sometimes have eccentric moves. To take a piece twenty moves away in a remote corner of the board, we move a pawn in the next file. Piece of cake really, but very high stress when millions of dollars and occasionally lives ride on a small decision. How do you do it? Care, but not too much. Focus entirely on the moment and the problem before you with the past as a guide and the future a star to guide on.

When I was in the "monastery", we sat in meditation for probably four to six hours each day, with another few hours in walking meditation. Living in the world one eventually ideally meditates for most of every waking day. One fails. Fails repeatedly, but with each failure we strengthen our resolve to pay better attention in the moment.

0 Replies

Gold Barz, the venerable is performing the role of a religious leader; he's teaching doctrine. Buddhism of the zen type does not depend AT ALL on doctrine or belief. I would suggest, for what it's worth, that you neither believe nor disbelieve his pronouncements (nor mine for that matter) on the subject. I mean to say that if he's right, you'll re-incarnate in a more favorable state; if he's wrong you won't. It should have nothing to do with your choice of beliefs. You might say, "But if I believe in reincarnation I will take care to live a more virtuous life in order to be reborn favorably." I suggest you live virtuously for its own sake, not for gain or out of fear. Religious beliefs are, to me at least, irrelevant to my life.

0 Replies

JL,

I think if you reread the quote Goldbars posted on the last page, you will find that "master venerable" isn't saying anything appreciably different than we've said, and that's been said countless times in the sutras. Goldbars merely presists in reading it to suit his preconcieved notion.

BTW "venerable" means respectably old, and "master" (with the lower case) often is applied to the young man of the household. This seems similar to Lao-Tze (old child). I suspect though that "master venerable" isn't a proper noun, but a mis-citation. Normally we would see this as Venerable Master, which still isn't a proper name/citation but a form of respectful address. I wonder who is being referred to here, it sounds sort of New Age-ish. On the other hand, I saw nothing in that single quote that might not have been said by any serious Buddhist.

0 Replies

Actualy Joe, and Frank it is clear - Joe's final post helped clarify for me what Frank was getting at. (Sorry about the hard headedness)

To restate what (mostly) Joe said above:

1) Science cannot get us to the truth - it just gets us close.

2) It is where Deductions are made from Inductive evidence where problems occur.

3) Where dedections are made from inductive evidence is where the scientist becomes more like a believer than a scientist.

This is the point where I disagree - but I now clearly see your arguments (and I think they are good ones). That there is no unambigious evidence for believers (or non-believers). Frank is saying that no evidence counts - it is simply too ambigious.

Here is what I (not Frank or Joe - just me) would modify this into to fit my position.

1) The evidence is not ambigious. If I see Jesus in front of me - that counts as evidence for God's existence. It is as unambigious as seeing a billard ball move (because it is experience).

2) This evidence can be weighed and claims can be made from them (with varying amounts of certainty - based corelatively on the amount of evidence).

3) (Here is where I understand Joe's position) In comparison to Law's of Gravity - God has far less experiential evidence YET the believer is equally willing to deduce a claim (i.e. that there is a God.)

Frank, although I am not willing to through out all experince I am willing to grant that most believers (as Frank stated before) do not come even close to weighing thier evidence carefully - and often just faith thier way to the 'truth'.

Frank, I know what your responces will be (you have been very consistant) - and I feel them for thier strengths - I just do not agree with them.

Joe, I now understand your position much better.

I thank you both for helping me understand my position better - and to see the other side.

I think our positions have been well stated. I am very proud of this thread - it gives me hope about people and thier ability to discuss diverging opinions in a civil manner.

I am also very excited to hammer my students with this line of questioning - I often take the role that Frank and Joe have takenin this thread (although I am fairly sure this is not a role for Frank or Joe - they are genuine) and I think your arguments are cogent, and well formed. I am glad to have the time to understand them better.

TF

0 Replies

Do you believe in souls?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know