4 ms·
I'm philosophically a Buddhist, so I put consciousness ("mind") first and wonder more about where the physical world comes from. Experientially, the world is no
by time_management 18y ago
I'm philosophically a Buddhist, so I put consciousness ("mind") first and wonder more about where the physical world comes from. Experientially, the world is not much different from a dream (except the sex is more awkward) but it has certain properties of persistence, regularity, and sharedness among ~10^11-14 sapient organisms that make a convincing case for a world of cold, hard matter that exists independently of us. But that's an illusion.
The physical universe doesn't actually exist, any more than a dream world does. There are probably trillions of universes in existence-- maybe infinitely many. They can't be counted, and they don't much matter because they're physically inaccessible to us. We're lucky, though, to be in an exceedingly successful universe whose laws are set ("fine tuned") to allow for complex life. The universes that don't support complex life to observe them might be "out there", but they effectively don't exist.
Mind is eternal, but the processes it can support depend on the physical system (body/brain) to which it binds, and of course that physical system evolves and, sadly, collapses. We're extremely lucky to have our minds bound to such beautiful, powerful creatures as humans. We could've just as easily been bound to cockroaches or tapeworms (and it can happen after death in a negative rebirth, but karma's another subject entirely).
The transmigration of consciousness is taken as self-evident by Eastern religions, and there's actually a fair bit of evidence for reincarnation (refer to the work of Ian Stevenson). What's controversial is whether or not a mind-- or, at least, an unenlightened mind-- can exist independent of a physical body at all. The Theravadan perspective tends to be that it cannot, whereas Tibetan Buddhists believe in an intermediate experiential state called the bardo.
Am I butterfly dreaming I'm a man? Or a bowling ball dreaming I'm a plate of sashimi? Never assume what you see and feel is real! -- Doreen, Chrono Trigger.
- yters 18y agoCan you describe the most convincing evidence for reincarnation?
- rodrigo 18y agoI dont view reincarnation as "me" waking up in some other body in some other time; IMHO it has to be on a gene level, "me" is just a bunch of genes wich have learned and contribute to the general pool. Or something like that.
- yters 18y agoWell, then anything adaptive is "reincarnation." You might as well just call it "adaptation," then, instead of redefining another word.
- rodrigo 18y agoThats it, i normally dont say "reincarnation". It seems to me that words like that were used to make graspable a concept thats hard to grasp; but it lost its sense when someboy tried to hard to make it fit in some view of things. Edit: It can also be called Evolution.
- FlorinAndrei 18y agoReincarnation is of secondary importance to buddhism, and indeed it gives the impression of a "bolted on" feature that was added later on to, presumably, satisfy the masses. The most strict interpretations of the buddhist doctrine actually posit the unreality of reincarnation. (n.b.: I am not a buddhist)
- alan-crowe 18y agoThings can evolve into their opposites. For example, those annoying persons who know Monty Python sketches off by heart and recite them have turned Monty Python into the kind of 1950's cozy cliche that the Pythons were rebelling against. "Mind only" versions of Buddhism strike me as exactly the attachment to views that the Buddha is warning against in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html">Cula Malunkyovada Sutta</a>. Notice the entirely mundane ontology of the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nyp...">Sallatha Sutta</a>. The Buddha is offering a system of mental training. His response to <a href=" http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/mustard-seed.html http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/mustard-seed.html">Kisa Gotami</a> is compassionate, shrewd, and above all ordinary. He teaches no metaphysics beyond opening your eyes and seeing for yourself what kind of world we live in. It is clear from the parable that the world Kisa Gotami is being encouraged to see is the ordinary, mundane one. I've had my own go at explaining what Buddhism is getting at when it says that <a href="http://www.hulver.com/scoop/comments/2008/3/10/21816/6428/19#19 http://www.hulver.com/scoop/comments/2008/3/10/21816/6428/19...">the world is an illusion.</a>. That still leaves the Buddha's teaching of anatman - no self. Surely that is metaphysically extravagent? But that brings us back to the original posters question. Reponding to a thread on Overcoming Bias, I've framed the traditional Buddhist answer in a reductionist, materialistic context, and written it in the language of shock level four. Notice the ordinaryness of the ontology and metaphysics beneath the <a href="http://www.hulver.com/scoop/story/2008/12/14/10333/990 http://www.hulver.com/scoop/story/2008/12/14/10333/990">the sci-fi shiny.</a>