Religion Vs. Philisophy

How does this tie in to the thread topic?

 

The most obvious reasoning would be that it would effect the parameters and variables and essentially ruin the experiment.

Maybe they can test for a Conscious Observer as well but that's likely 2 or more different experiments and I think that's what Mountain Valley Wolf was mentioning, which is the link I asked him about.

 

That's a good question, I think the either/or has to do with the fact at the Quantum level there is a high degree of Uncertainty. So if they measure the position of a particle then they are less clear about the momentum of it, and if they measure the momentum of the wave, they are less clear about a specific position of the particle.

 

I am eager to jump in here guys---but I got to help get stuff going for Thanksgiving---I will respond more later.

However---a quick note----as I said the first post was wrong, and the second post was done by an indidividual who admitted that he didn't even know how the measurement was made, but then added that it is "brutally interacting" with the particle. But to simply write it off as decoherence, does not resolve the other examples that would create decoherence (I gave one example, I will provide another one later when I have more time), which should also prevent the interference pattern. But the interference pattern always happens when there is no measurement.

In answer to your question China Cat----in the quantum world we can only have knowledge of momentum or location, never both. The idea behind a probability wave collapse is that there is no position until observed, or until a position is determined through decoherence. There is only a superposition and a wave. A wave has no beginning nor end, and stretches through time---in other words it really has no physical position. An electron circling an atom can exist, for example, simultaneously all over the universe---but it 'mostly' exists where the probability is greater---and the greatest is every possible point around that atomic nucleus. But it exists simultaneously at all these points. An electron, for example, circling a carbon atom in your hand is simultaneously at every point around that nucleus, and on the surface of the sun, and somewhere deep into the universe---and everywhere else. And it is the same with all the other electrons circling that atom, and the nucleus as well----except that upon a probability wave collapse, it only has one position in space-time. This is hard for people to comprehend---but it is quantum mechanics.

They don't have a wave detector, and if someone used one, it would not be needed. This is the mistake that was in that quote----though GB said I was wrong. Here is the ironic part---if there was a wave detector, and if the particle detector caused the collapse by way of decoherence, then the wave detector would also cause decoherence. We cannot manipulate how decoherence takes place---and if we could it would bring back the problem of the conscious observer which scientists are trying to free themselves from.

There is no need because light and other quanta already exist as a wave. The double slits by themselves create an interference pattern indicating that it is moving as a wave.

Anyway---my wife is getting upset---I have to help get dinner ready and the house ready...

 

Wave detector is referring to the Screen. From the link itself...

 

I am getting PM'd that this is getting off topic though So I'll leave it at that.

 

I'm sorry if I don't reply to every point but it's very hard to deal with the sheer volume of posts and also the fact that there are actually multiple regular posters who are all essentially "banding together" under the heading of "the spiritual camp" and trying to pit me and possibly others into the "scientific materialist camp" and if I fail to address EVERYONEs points then some people feel that therefore their "camp" is correct and that therefore, their own, personal views are correct. This is despite the fact that even if the people in the "spiritual camp" sat down and spoke with each other, they'd find they actually have very little in common with their worldviews, and have certainly misunderstood and misrepresented my own views.

I'm going to try and remedy that:

That is disingenuous of you; I never said that it's because I disagree with your views. This is another attempt to paint me as a dictator and reduce the complexity of my existence and views to that of a "taurus". Please stop. I said you shouldn't have kids because you're going to teach them stupid shit, which you admitted and agreed to. You will teach them to navigate the oceans via reading tea leaves, and you once asked me to explain how doing so could possibly result in loss of life, a question which belies a profound lack of intelligence, maturity, and perspective.

I am not an evil person for believing that you should not have children. I am allowed, in every sense, to have such a belief, especially given that I am backing it up with facts.

I still don't think you should be having children, but I also don't think most people who have children should have them, for a large number of reasons.

How can an idea be insulted? It cannot. Only a person can be. No idea gets a free pass through the marketplace of ideas; each one needs to be scrutinized and reacted to appropriately; if that reaction is ridicule (one which you have displayed yourself vis science), then that is what the reaction is. Deal with it. Either drop the idea or work on it so you're no longer being ridiculed when you bring it up.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings but you also need to take a hint and realize that maybe your ideas are predictably producing a reaction amongst those who hear them, and maybe that's a sign of something that you might not be ready to admit.

Meditation IS a ritual. Rituals are powerful. There is no question about that, and so is the placebo effect. If you are able to harness the placebo effect through ritual, then you have done something very powerful.

If this is the only thing that "Magick" is, then Magick exists. However I believe in the past you have implied it is far more powerful than that. If I am mistaken, and you are speaking about the placebo effect this whole time, then I apologize for the misunderstanding, and recommend that to avoid confusion in your life in the future you call it by the accepted term, "Placebo Effect". "Magick" has a lot of superstitious baggage attached to it and is a poor choice of name given the root of that word.

I'm not sure I can, I think you have a lot of ideas and preconceptions floating around. To start, I don't believe in zen it is said that the void is outside of our physical existences; existence itself is the void. The purpose of praying, you'd have to ask those who pray. I do not, because I don't see the purpose So this question to me is kind of missing the point. You start from the assumption that praying has a purpose, then you notice a philosophy which throws that into question, and instead of questioning praying, you question the philosophy. I don't see the conflict between a materialist view of the universe and zen. Zen is much deeper and older than views on materialism. We are talking about different levels of reality here.

Incorrect. This is where your basic lack of education shows through, and I say that not as an ad hominem, but as a gentle push for you to speak less and listen more. To post much, much less, and read much, much more. For example, wikipedia is a great resource, and if you had just looked up what you're talking about, literally the very first line shows you're wrong:

"Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions."

"Monism is the view that attributes oneness or singleness (Greek:μόνος) to a concept (e.g. existence). Substance monism is the philosophical view that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance."

See? No issues, except your haste to be heard before you've figured out what's to be heard. You've confused two different debates: Materialism vs Idealism, and Monism vs Dualism. You've confused these two categories because you haven't taken the time to learn what you're talking about. You take a thin read of all these topics, which represent the most difficult and ancient topics of learning for mankind, and think you have answers when you don't even know which questions to ask.

Do you have proof that it does?

Another false dichotomy. We could be here as part of a grand plan of a cosmic being and be inherently separate from other things, such as the being. In fact, such is the view of much of the world. Or, everything could be an "accident", yet everything could be wholly interconnected, as one big interconnected accident based on nothing but chance and celestial mechanics.

You are using a definition of "life", "born", "live", and "die", that is generally used in a poetic sense when discussing inanimate matter such as stars.

There is no biologist, geologist, or astronomer, who speaks in this way, literally. And those are the people who would know, wouldn't you say?

No, it actually isn't. Maybe you should learn more about the big bang before talking about it. Like, until you can at least partially understand the mathematics involved, you shouldn't really consider your opinion to be on solid ground at all.

Here is a beginning for you, a selection of views by astrophysicist Richard Lawrence, where he explains how the common belief that the universe came from "nothing" is completely wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=richard+lawrence+nothing

Yes, and I guess since everything is connected, then squares are also circles, 1 is also 2, and this sentence is actually written in English AND Mandarin! Amazing! Did you know you spoke Mandarin?!

Yes, a MEAL. We don't generally consider our meals to be alive at the time of them being a meal. Your use of language is troubling . . . remember it exists to help you understand the world, not to lose yourself in it.

 

As Meagain has explained this is an erroneous view; it is not a "soul" which migrates into another body, but rather a set of circumstances which is propelled into another being.

All this of course only matters if you want to take this discussion seriously, which, for example, I do not. There is no "very essence" in buddhism, after all, it starts with anatta. Many buddhists, especially in zen, did not believe in Karma. Definitely look more into zen buddhism, maybe specifically research Bodhidharma.

Maybe you should ask your wife? Have you considered that she shouldn't? Why does it have to be that because she does this activity, in a very heartfelt manner, and with great pathos, that therefore her philosophical beliefs are correct? Did I miss the news where we learned that when we believe something with all our hearts, it's true? Because that's not how life, truth, or the universe works

"Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about god while peeling the potatoes; zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes"

- Alan Watts, circa ~1950.

"Not creating delusions is enlightenment. Your mind is Nirvana."

- Bodhidharma, circa ~ AD 500

More research is the name of the game for you, big time.

Under every accepted definition of "life" and "crystal", no. Would you like to find me a geologist or biologist who disagrees? I'd be interested in expert opinion like that, after all, they would know.

This is the root of your problems young man. Philosophy, the art of exploring the truths of the universe with language, starts by defining your words.

Wrong. Buddhism acknowledges that CHANGE is the universal truth, and in living beings, this is birth, life and death, literally. With stars, it's poetically, figuratively. Stars are not alive by our common understanding of life. If you have a different understanding, make an argument for it.

I have experienced profound spiritual reality. That doesn't mean I believe in such a thing as a spirit, or that anything I experienced was outside my mind.

I'm extremely passionate about spirituality. I meditate regularly and commune with nature as often as I can. I'm also not a materialist. These are not exhaustive categories either.

You should read/listen to sam harris, one of the four "new atheist horsemen", he's an neuroscientist who's spent years meditating in silence and was even the dalai lama's bodyguard for a while.

Here's a start: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sam+harris+spirituality

If you're still not convinced after truly taking the time to listen and do research in this direction, I'd still like you to try and explain how you experienced something that wasn't in your mind, how you knew it wasn't, and how you experienced it. I hope there's a part of you that can see that even by asking this question the notion is immediately dismantled.

 

That is disingenuous of you; I never said that it's because I disagree with your views. This is another attempt to paint me as a dictator and reduce the complexity of my existence and views to that of a "taurus". Please stop. I said you shouldn't have kids because you're going to teach them stupid shit

You are already contradicting yourself. You're saying that i shouldn't have kids because you disagree with my ideas which you think are stupid. Nevermind what you think the ideas are. None of your opinions on my procreation pertains to the conversation anyhow.

And maybe if you didn't consistently show Taurus traits, then I wouldn't have to point out your Taurus nature.


I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings but you also need to take a hint and realize that maybe your ideas are predictably producing a reaction amongst those who hear them, and maybe that's a sign of something that you might not be ready to admit.

I'm well aware that my posts stir up a reaction in people. Much more aware than you think.

How can an idea be insulted? It cannot. Only a person can be. No idea gets a free pass through the marketplace of ideas; each one needs to be scrutinized and reacted to appropriately; if that reaction is ridicule (one which you have displayed yourself vis science), then that is what the reaction is. Deal with it. Either drop the idea or work on it so you're no longer being ridiculed when you bring it up.

Maybe you should apply this to yourself. You need to deal with my ridiculing of your ideas as well. You brought that up two posts ago.

Meditation IS a ritual. Rituals are powerful. There is no question about that, and so is the placebo effect. If you are able to harness the placebo effect through ritual, then you have done something very powerful.

If this is the only thing that "Magick" is, then Magick exists. However I believe in the past you have implied it is far more powerful than that. If I am mistaken, and you are speaking about the placebo effect this whole time, then I apologize for the misunderstanding, and recommend that to avoid confusion in your life in the future you call it by the accepted term, "Placebo Effect". "Magick" has a lot of superstitious baggage attached to it and is a poor choice of name given the root of that word.

Maybe you should do your own education and realize that Magick has always been involved with consciously dealing with the Placebo Effect. So finally you are able as a Scientist to admit that Magick is real? The only difference between the Placebo Effect and Magick is that Magick is consciously utilizing the Placebo Effect to its own advantage and so is Shamanism (reference my study that i posted if you need to).

Magick is as powerful as you allow it to be. As you already said, if you train your mind, it will mold more and more to that training. There is infinite potential to this in regards to Magick.

And I will keep using it by its honored name, Magick. Magick is a conscious process. The Placebo Effect is unconscious.

Incorrect. This is where your basic lack of education shows through, and I say that not as an ad hominem, but as a gentle push for you to speak less and listen more. To post much, much less, and read much, much more. For example, wikipedia is a great resource, and if you had just looked up what you're talking about, literally the very first line shows you're wrong:

"Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions."

"Monism is the view that attributes oneness or singleness (Greek:μόνος) to a concept (e.g. existence). Substance monism is the philosophical view that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance."

See? No issues, except your haste to be heard before you've figured out what's to be heard. You've confused two different debates: Materialism vs Idealism, and Monism vs Dualism. You've confused these two categories because you haven't taken the time to learn what you're talking about. You take a thin read of all these topics, which represent the most difficult and ancient topics of learning for mankind, and think you have answers when you don't even know which questions to ask.


I don't really care what you think my education is. Sometimes, education actually gets in the way because you can potentially get too much in the logical mind and lose touch with other resources of intelligence within yourself.

I would still say that Materialism and Dualism are both vs. Monism and Idealism. In fact, Dr. Amit Goswami would call it "monistic-idealism" in his book The Self Aware Universe.

Buddha Mind to me would actually just embrace both camps ultimately but in my opinion is closer to the Monism and Idealism camp than the other two on a relative scale.

No, it actually isn't. Maybe you should learn more about the big bang before talking about it. Like, until you can at least partially understand the mathematics involved, you shouldn't really consider your opinion to be on solid ground at all.

Here is a beginning for you, a selection of views by astrophysicist Richard Lawrence, where he explains how the common belief that the universe came from "nothing" is completely wrong.

Whatever they teach in modern education is that something came from nothing. So I would blame modern education on this.

Under every accepted definition of "life" and "crystal", no. Would you like to find me a geologist or biologist who disagrees? I'd be interested in expert opinion like that, after all, they would know.

Yes, as long as they go under the title "expert", then surely they know. Did you know that you can grow crystals and that they even change color when you carry them around? They interact with your energy and it's very apparent the more that you carry them. I know that sounds too New Age or whatever for you. Personally, I call everything that exists Life. If that's too poetic and/or spiritual for you then just deal with it. You don't have to confuse my perspective with a purely incorrect view of things.

Strange, fertile correspondences the alchemists sensed in unlikely orders of being. Between men and planets, plants and gestures, words and weather. These disturbing connections: an infant's cry and the stroke of silk; the whorl of an ear and an appearance of dogs in the yard; a woman's heard lowered in sleep and the morning dance of cannibals, these are conjunctions which transcend the sterile signal of any "willed" montage. These juxtapositions of objects, sounds, actions, colors, weapons, wounds, and odors shine in an unheard way, impossible ways. -Jim Morrison

If you can't jive with things of this nature then it just means you have different perspectives, not that I am incorrect. Maybe you're just lacking that God gene in your system.

Wrong. Buddhism acknowledges that CHANGE is the universal truth, and in living beings, this is birth, life and death, literally. With stars, it's poetically, figuratively. Stars are not alive by our common understanding of life. If you have a different understanding, make an argument for it.

So you're bashing my poetic language in one sentence and in the next you're defending poetic language to fit your views. Stars exist and then they don't. This is its death. If CHANGE is the only universal truth, then you must feel that humans don't literally die when they "die" either. It must only be poetic.

The change is obviously always going to take some form. Whether it's life, birth, or death. If a star ceases to exist in the form that it once was in, whether it's figuratively or "literally", either way, it means the same thing.

Pointing to this same process in humans and saying that its ceasing of existence is somehow more literal than the ceasing existence of a star is a pointless and meaningless argument.

Life is the Universe and existence itself. Energy is life. Matter is life. Why? Because it exists, and is a vibration in the Universe.


This is the root of your problems young man. Philosophy, the art of exploring the truths of the universe with language, starts by defining your words.

I don't even know what you imply by this and I can also do whatever I want. That definition that was posted didn't mean anything for me, and that's what I meant. And honestly, just shut up with your "young man" bullshit. Don't look down to me with your sneering pretentious "education". Your Ego is boiling to the brim.


Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about god while peeling the potatoes; zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes"

- Alan Watts, circa ~1950.

"Not creating delusions is enlightenment. Your mind is Nirvana."

- Bodhidharma, circa ~ AD 500

More research is the name of the game for you, big time.

And speaking of education, you keep mentioning the Bodhidharma like you know much about him and meanwhile have already confused a Bodhisattva with an Angel. This is just plainly incorrect. You've given off plenty of vibes so far that you don't quite fully grasp some very essential aspects of Buddhism on multiple occasions.

I have experienced profound spiritual reality. That doesn't mean I believe in such a thing as a spirit, or that anything I experienced was outside my mind.

Then why would you even call it YOUR mind? "Your" implies that there's a You who has a mind. Is there a You who has a mind or are you and the mind one and the same? Is "you" and your experience nothing but the mind? If this is true, then does that mean nothing exists outside of Mr. Writer? If you say yes, then it sounds rather Schizophrenic. And if not, then it must mean that "your" mind is connected or part of everyone else's mind.

And how do you know that you have experienced profound spiritual reality, if you only brush it off as "nothing but in my mind"? Isn't it contradictory to call it a hallucination and a profound spiritual reality at the same time?

If nothing happens outside of your mind at all then everything in the entire Universe would only be Mind, which would be agreeing with the Hermetic view of Mentalism that The All is Mind. This is the groundwork philosophy for Magick and manifesting reality with Mind.

If there is nothing but your mind to work with, then certainly you would be moulding your life in accordance to what beliefs you do and don't have, and what you think can or can't happen. Your mind would definitely be playing a role. Magick is nothing more than mastering your mind.

Maybe you should ask your wife? Have you considered that she shouldn't? Why does it have to be that because she does this activity, in a very heartfelt manner, and with great pathos, that therefore her philosophical beliefs are correct? Did I miss the news where we learned that when we believe something with all our hearts, it's true? Because that's not how life, truth, or the universe works

Yes, you did miss the news that belief HIGHLY plays a role in what you experience in your life as to what the truth is. You're even demonstrating it right here


Speaking of Sam Harris, which you have, we have already watched a posted video on this forum about how he talks about how the subjective part of experience can't ultimately be removed from the reality of the experience.


For how much "education" you have and for how much you're supposedly into Buddhism and spirituality, you don't at all grasp the value of the destruction of your education and belief systems.

 

"Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions."

Ok so it's saying that thought is actually matter and is equivalent to material interactions. So thoughts have substance to them and are in theory equivalent to a table. So certainly mind, thought, and belief plays a role in your manifest reality.

 

There seems to be a contradiction in using the word 'spirituality' to refer to your experiences when you say there is no spirit. At least to me it seems that way.


I'm familiar with Sam Harris already, but thanks for the link anyway.

If you like contemplating nature, you should read Wordsworth.

 

My actual position is that I don't know to what you are pointing when you say "spirit". If you mean it poetically, like "that which is inside you and is your center", then I think you are just referring to mind. Kind of like how we say someone "has a good heart", we aren't talking about his cardiac muscles, we're pointing at the compassion module in his mind/behavior for example.

So if by spirit you mean your deepest part, then of course that exists. if by spirit you mean some kind of supernatural ghost that hangs around after death, I'd like to see your data before I believe that such an organ exists .

Do you think that atheists do not have spiritual experiences?

 

But the mind isn't the deepest part of you

If it equates with a hallucination in the mind then i don't think that it constitutes for a spiritual experience. You can't say it's not real and yet profound spiritual reality at the same time.

 

It operates on two different levels, and both parts can be trained and enlightened. I'll give you an example. Let's say someone raised from birth to be a racist comes to an intellectual awareness of the fact that racism is unfair, dysfunctional, shallow, etc. For some time after that, their first reaction to seeing someone of a different race may still be negative, until the thought is processed through the conscious part of the mind that produces our constantly ongoing internal narrative. Eventually, the subconscious level of the mind will follow that lead, and the instantaneous reaction will be positive or neutral. This natural learning process can be accelerated through time devoted to meditation and introspection.

 

Sweet. Doesn't have to do with that the mind isn't the deepest part of you. Also, how is Meditation on topic? Since I'm being called out about training the mind with Magick in regards to being on topic, I feel that this is a valid question.

 

Since by definition spirit is not a material thing, it's hardly going to be found in an organ. On the other hand it permeates everything, including our physical organs, even those of the atheist.

I don't think atheists have spiritual experiences, or if they do, they presumably reject them. What the atheist takes as spirit is only mind, as you yourself demonstrate.

Generally I would define spirit as Brahman. You'd have to go into Yoga philosophy to understand the mental concept, and deeper if you want to experience it.

From the standpoint of Hinduism in general, not knowing Brahman is called avidya, a form of ignorance. But as we've already discussed, it isn't something that can be grasped as an intellectual idea, or even if one has some mental concept, one still would not know it. I has to be realized through yoga sadhana.

 

But since it's not Buddhism, I don't think Writer will find any validity to this. Only Vipassana Meditation is valid apparently

 

It has been a long time since I have actually discussed Buddhism, but...

You bring up some very good points, and I now see how it is therefore such a perfect post-modern religion for even the non-religious or atheists. Karen J also made a good point.

As you did say that the things you shared are your opinion, let me add my thoughts---and again----it is my opinion of course.

The problem here may actually be, as you said, one of…

Nonetheless, in Buddhist countries, there is a definite comprehension of rebirth of the individual. Through the ages, for example, Japanese have cared for how they live in order that they are not reborn with a worst lot in life. There are plenty of folktales that share Buddhist values, and deal with rebirth, among other things.
One example is a story of a boy who was so strong, he had a tattoo of the character ‘chikara’ (strength), placed on his arm. He was killed in an accident trying to save someone. The mother went into deep mourning and after several years became pregnant with a boy. When he was born he had a birthmark in the shape and location as the tattoo. In the end he was the same boy who had returned to do great things with his strength.

The Diamond Sutra speaks, for example, of a person who has created evil karma in previous lifetimes, we can argue that there is no individual self—a subjective—that is passed on from one life to another, but this passing of evil karma from one life to another represents a subjective history passed from one life to another.

On the other hand there are the festivals in the Fall in China and Japan where the dead come back to visit (representing an individual self that has survived death), and so forth. These festivals are not treated by the religious in these countries in the disenchanted manner as say, Santa Claus visiting us on Christmas here in America. There is a true belief in the spirits of the dead coming back to visit. (It is the less religious that treat this as a holiday based on myth brought down from simpler times when people believed in such things.) There are very many ghost stories from these countries that incorporate Buddhist belief. And almost all Buddhists in Japan have altars just as my wife’s family does, which they pray to their ancestors to.

I would say that in at least some of the Shinren sects that there is a belief that the soul passes from one body to the next, as I shall demonstrate later. They also resort to ‘magic’ which has been mentioned here.

Regardless, there is still a metaphysical coming together of co-arising causes and originations (dependent origination, or pratitya-samutpada), which as we shall see, is a function of both an idealism and essentialism.

But this gets us to anatta

Anatta represents objectivism pushed to the limits. Everything, including the self, is an objective reality. But it is all ‘one single’ objective reality. It is obvious then why this would be appealing to atheists and a materialist interpretation of reality (or as they now like to say, a physicalist, but I call a spade a spade). I say this because on the surface this seems anti-essentialist, because it treats the subjective self (which is denied) as essence. It eliminates the existentially non-physical (the human mind), and leaves us with only objective physical reality which includes all living things. And what is beyond that physical reality? Not a God, but rather nothingness. Buddhism then provides a perfect way to gain non-attachment, and hopefully resolve our own mortality, in a Godless world.

Except that:

This is because everything is representative of a single objective reality—everything is one. But this oneness in Buddhism represents both the void, and physical existence—all of which arises from the quintessential nature of things: Buddha Mind, the One Mind. The Seekers Glossary of Buddhism describes Buddha Nature as “the true immutable nature of all beings” and “The basic, quintessential nature of sentient beings.”

This One Mind represents both the essentialism and idealism of Buddhism. Quintessential bears the definition, “essence in its purest and most concentrated form.” The One Mind, is also referred to as True Mind, and it is written that True Mind is to mind, what water is to waves, they cannot be separated but they are different. The Avatamsaka Sutra says that everything is made from mind alone. Mind is also referred to in this Sutra as the ultimate truth or principal, or the noumenon.

The void, or emptiness is not an absence of things, or something befitting an atheist concept that nothing exists outside of the physical, rather it is a concept that nothing is independent or fixed. In other words, that there is no subjective existence. Therefore it is stated that the True Nature of something, which would equate to a subjective nature of that thing by virtue of it appearing to be independent and separate, is emptiness, i.e. there is no subjective. From the Heart Sutra, we read that form does not differ from the void, and the void does not differ from the form. Elsewhere we read that everything arises from the void, while nothing arises from the void. In other words, while everything arises from form (exists as a phenomena), it is all in fact of a single noumenon and therefore has no form.

Consider this from an existential standpoint—we perceive ourselves in the subjective sense. But our True Nature is emptiness, because in truth we possess anatta, rather than self. Which really means that we are not separate individuals but are simply a part of True Mind or One Mind. Enlightenment occurs, to borrow from Zen, when No Mind is achieved, which represents mind before duality arose through thought. This is to rediscover our place in One Mind.

But it can be argued that life after death, such as is assumed in China, Japan, and elsewhere, is simply a continuation of that same illusion of subjectivity. Since one, as part of the One Mind, can perceive a subjective self, then after physical death, as one is still part of One Mind, one can continue to perceive a subjective self, and thereby remain subjective of one’s karmic chain. The argument follows that Buddha did not teach of life after death, but the Buddha also did not teach that there is ‘no’ life after death. It is in this way that various Shinren sects, for example, could promote a belief in the afterlife.

 

Could that have to do with the rather complex historical interactions Buddhism has had with Hinduism? I know for example that most of India used to be Buddhist before it was Hindu, and all of Cambodia was Hindu before it was Buddhist (11th century). When one religion replaces another, remnants are always left behind and integrated to some degree.

 

I'm not here to put other people down. Writer has his karma, as do we all. I disagree with his views, but accept fully that he has every right to them.

Personally, I'm not a follower of Buddhism. I looked into it some years ago, and concluded that it isn't something I want to pursue. However, if people want to follow any path of meditation, even if they only do it to get mental peace or whatever, I think that's OK. It's an improvement on the general way people are in this culture.

On the other hand, I know some people who follow a specific type of Tibetan Buddhism, and to me they don't seem to be getting much benefit, other than on a purely social level.
Just last week I was told in an angry manner that my attitude that ISIS should be totally destroyed means I'm 'full of hate and anger'. Quite a spectacle.

Of course, I don't imagine for a moment that all Buddhist followers are that way.