5 ms·

Buddhism is as close to a science as anything that could be described by anyone as a religion can get. It's really an experiment that you choose to perform on

Buddhism is as close to a science as anything that could be described by anyone as a religion can get. It's really an experiment that you choose to perform on yourself, and your objective reality. What you find is precisely the point of it.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
No it's not. Reincarnation is about as fantastic as you can get. Not. Close. To. Science. At. All. Science isn't about choices. It's about Truth. What is true and what is false isn't a choice.
- wordbank 11y ago
  There's no reincarnation in Buddhism, only rebirth. And rebirth happens to you right now when your consciousness arises again and again from previous states of your mind. Yes, there's also a "fantastic" theory that this process goes beyond physical death but this theory is supported by simple logic of buddhist philosophy.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    >but this theory is supported by simple logic of buddhist philosophy. but not supported by science.
    - wordbank 11y ago
      Science is not an absolute knowledge. It has many unproved theories and makes mistakes on a regular basis. (Please note that my world view is purely scientific but I'm using buddhist ideas for looking into my consciousness because science doesn't say much about it.)
  - someone8932759 11y ago
    This is, in my opinion, the correct interpretation of "reincarnation". It's the realisation that your experience (and you!) is changing moment-to-moment, never constant. Being that the self is inconstant, what is self and what is not self can be sorted out. Going beyond that to imply a continuity of the "same" "individual" consciousness after a birth is not the point being made.
- someone8932759 11y ago
  If you're misinterpreting the concept of reincarnation (the popular meaning of "karma" is just as confused) that badly, it's clear that you haven't looked at the basics of Buddhism. Generally begins with something aptly labeled the "Four Noble Truths". To "choose" to falsify these is ignorance, (the default starting point for everyone born) and subsequently realising that it cannot be done, is the experiment you must do on yourself. There is no one else who can write it down for you to read and then think about it once over and to "get" it like a math theorem is not what you should be expecting. This is more and more obvious once you take a look at the the substantial buddhist writings; all of it is entirely based in solid logical thinking, yet where it points is not a place where logic can go. To clarify, reincarnation in this context is happening dozens of times every second. So then, "you" don't really last all that long, and there really isn't a constant "you" anyway. And what happens in-between those beats? Ah, look into -that-.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    >To clarify, reincarnation in this context is happening dozens of times every second. So then, "you" don't really last all that long, and there really isn't a constant "you" anyway. And what happens in-between those beats? Ah, look into -that-. Has the alternative been falsified by evidence? Has this process been observed? As complex/beautiful/philosophical/metaphysical as a concept is, it is not Science unless it can be experimentally verified. One can just as easily say that reincarnation is bullshit, and you can't prove otherwise unless you have no evidence. Science and logic are related but they mean different things. Science requires evidence for falsifiability. Deduction and proof are the domain of logic, not science. Still. Not. Scientific. At. All.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - someone8932759 11y ago
      You're acting like a child who keeps asking "why?" to every statement. Don't stay hung up on "is my idea of reincarnation real, or not?" - because that is just a concept. What's the difference between two trees? What did you bring with you when you were born? Whose mind would be reincarnated? There is no mind - the concept of a mind exists; and there are brains. Science is a concept. Religion is a concept. I never equated them, because what I am describing is not a concept: reality itself is not a concept. Your either/or viewpoint will get you nowhere in these matters: there is no alternative - it is both, and neither; non-dual. I'm telling you that the starting point for this experiment is to look at reality closely, without trying to complicate it by saying it must be this and not be that. It is what it is. Of course, this makes no sense, because I can't make that step for you. It could take minutes, or years, to get the point. Be instead like the child who sees the order in clouds without labeling them as seeming to be this or that as they move across the sky. The experiment is experiential to the individual; do these things, and expect this result to inevitably occur. Do not these things, and it will not occur. Thousands of years of the same results, and yet you ask for evidence to be produced by others instead of yourself. Don't misconstrue this as a personal failing - everyone starts from the same confusing position you are expressing. That each individual must overcome this futile attempt at reasoning and thinking their way to liberation is only a problem when you are determined to solve the problem in that way. Look. Spin a pen or shoot a basket until it can be done without effort or thought - who is it that has learned this? Motor memory, brains dissected and labeled; etc., but all that is useless towards learning or doing. Would it ever be the same to describe how these actions are done with words as it is to do them without words or thoughts? I can spin a pen skillfully for a long time with the simple directive of "don't drop it", and my fingers do it for me. Over time, they avoid actions that did not lead to the desired outcome, moment to moment. When that brain that has learned that action has been dissolved, who would expect it to be innate in a new being? Yet the knowledge of how to do this thing was never mine; it is available to all to use.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

No it's not. Reincarnation is about as fantastic as you can get. Not. Close. To. Science. At. All. Science isn't about choices. It's about Truth. What is true and what is false isn't a choice.

wordbank 11y ago
There's no reincarnation in Buddhism, only rebirth. And rebirth happens to you right now when your consciousness arises again and again from previous states of your mind. Yes, there's also a "fantastic" theory that this process goes beyond physical death but this theory is supported by simple logic of buddhist philosophy.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  >but this theory is supported by simple logic of buddhist philosophy. but not supported by science.
  - wordbank 11y ago
    Science is not an absolute knowledge. It has many unproved theories and makes mistakes on a regular basis. (Please note that my world view is purely scientific but I'm using buddhist ideas for looking into my consciousness because science doesn't say much about it.)
- someone8932759 11y ago
  This is, in my opinion, the correct interpretation of "reincarnation". It's the realisation that your experience (and you!) is changing moment-to-moment, never constant. Being that the self is inconstant, what is self and what is not self can be sorted out. Going beyond that to imply a continuity of the "same" "individual" consciousness after a birth is not the point being made.
someone8932759 11y ago
If you're misinterpreting the concept of reincarnation (the popular meaning of "karma" is just as confused) that badly, it's clear that you haven't looked at the basics of Buddhism. Generally begins with something aptly labeled the "Four Noble Truths". To "choose" to falsify these is ignorance, (the default starting point for everyone born) and subsequently realising that it cannot be done, is the experiment you must do on yourself. There is no one else who can write it down for you to read and then think about it once over and to "get" it like a math theorem is not what you should be expecting. This is more and more obvious once you take a look at the the substantial buddhist writings; all of it is entirely based in solid logical thinking, yet where it points is not a place where logic can go. To clarify, reincarnation in this context is happening dozens of times every second. So then, "you" don't really last all that long, and there really isn't a constant "you" anyway. And what happens in-between those beats? Ah, look into -that-.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  >To clarify, reincarnation in this context is happening dozens of times every second. So then, "you" don't really last all that long, and there really isn't a constant "you" anyway. And what happens in-between those beats? Ah, look into -that-. Has the alternative been falsified by evidence? Has this process been observed? As complex/beautiful/philosophical/metaphysical as a concept is, it is not Science unless it can be experimentally verified. One can just as easily say that reincarnation is bullshit, and you can't prove otherwise unless you have no evidence. Science and logic are related but they mean different things. Science requires evidence for falsifiability. Deduction and proof are the domain of logic, not science. Still. Not. Scientific. At. All.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - someone8932759 11y ago
    You're acting like a child who keeps asking "why?" to every statement. Don't stay hung up on "is my idea of reincarnation real, or not?" - because that is just a concept. What's the difference between two trees? What did you bring with you when you were born? Whose mind would be reincarnated? There is no mind - the concept of a mind exists; and there are brains. Science is a concept. Religion is a concept. I never equated them, because what I am describing is not a concept: reality itself is not a concept. Your either/or viewpoint will get you nowhere in these matters: there is no alternative - it is both, and neither; non-dual. I'm telling you that the starting point for this experiment is to look at reality closely, without trying to complicate it by saying it must be this and not be that. It is what it is. Of course, this makes no sense, because I can't make that step for you. It could take minutes, or years, to get the point. Be instead like the child who sees the order in clouds without labeling them as seeming to be this or that as they move across the sky. The experiment is experiential to the individual; do these things, and expect this result to inevitably occur. Do not these things, and it will not occur. Thousands of years of the same results, and yet you ask for evidence to be produced by others instead of yourself. Don't misconstrue this as a personal failing - everyone starts from the same confusing position you are expressing. That each individual must overcome this futile attempt at reasoning and thinking their way to liberation is only a problem when you are determined to solve the problem in that way. Look. Spin a pen or shoot a basket until it can be done without effort or thought - who is it that has learned this? Motor memory, brains dissected and labeled; etc., but all that is useless towards learning or doing. Would it ever be the same to describe how these actions are done with words as it is to do them without words or thoughts? I can spin a pen skillfully for a long time with the simple directive of "don't drop it", and my fingers do it for me. Over time, they avoid actions that did not lead to the desired outcome, moment to moment. When that brain that has learned that action has been dissolved, who would expect it to be innate in a new being? Yet the knowledge of how to do this thing was never mine; it is available to all to use.