The Open Source Religion & Spirituality Project and Religion 2.0
Buddha on The Brain
Nov. 27, 2006 | The debate between science and religion typically gets stuck on the thorny question of God's existence. How do you reconcile an all-powerful God with the mechanistic slog of evolution? Can a rationalist do anything but sneer at the Bible's miracles? But what if another religion -- a nontheistic one -- offered a way out of this impasse? That's the promise that some people hold out for in Buddhism. The Dalai Lama himself is deeply invested in reconciling science and spirituality. He meets regularly with Western scientists, looking for links between Buddhism and the latest research in physics and neuroscience. In his book "The Universe in a Single Atom," he wrote, "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
Read the rest of this article here.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David Bee on -
Check back in 1,000 years? 1,000,000 years? To bad you don't plan to be here. I do.
If Homo Erectus were sentient, I'll ask them when I meet them.
The glory of God is intelligence.
doone said:"But I firmly believe scientific analysis will never be able to do that." Check back in a 1000 or 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 years - you will be surprised to learn that Man is now God and God is a fairy tale lost in the midst of time.
I wonder who Homo Erectus worshiped - the Lion God? God is the mud of Man's ignorance.
-
Permalink Reply by The Kernel on -
doone, you say God is the Mud of Man's ignorance.
It is not possible to prove the objective existence of god. I'm not sure this forum could achieve consensus regarding even a possible definition of God - although we're trying. So in that way, you are correct, mud does exist. However, there seems to exist a universal predisposition by people around the world to give thanks to a supreme being or beings when the harvest comes in or to explain phenomena like drought in terms of god's punishment. These tendencies or psychic reflexes have evolved for a reason. Certainly we can agree on that. Are you proposing that if the godly-mud were removed ignorance would evaporate in to a godless utopia? What is your proposal for removing the mud? If God is the Mud of Man's ignorance, are your suggesting we remove the mud or we remove god. Is redefinition possible or must the concept be expunged from universal consciousness of mankind? Love to here more.
doone said:"But I firmly believe scientific analysis will never be able to do that." Check back in a 1000 or 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 years - you will be surprised to learn that Man is now God and God is a fairy tale lost in the midst of time.
I wonder who Homo Erectus worshiped - the Lion God? God is the mud of Man's ignorance.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim G on -
Well I don't see a reply from Doone but if I might chime in to the discussion...
There would be no holy terrorists or holy wars, that would be a good start. I am sure tensions between countries like Iran would improve, as there would be no holy dictators. But I don't think "removing the mud" has to be only a "godless" belief system, in that as I use the example of my seeing Religion 2.0 as being godless, but godless in terms of ignoring God, allowing still for the optional belief in God, but ignoring God, and focusing on shared values which would be mined from religion and philosophy. A Buddhist, to me, ignores God. But a Western Buddhist at least, and probably the others if they wanted to, I'm not all tha knowledgeable about other cultures, -- a Western or any Buddhist for that matter could believe in God and just let God be God without worshipping God. In a way they would still be giving thanks to God, silently anyways, because if you believed in God and you were fully present to life that in itself would be a sort of living prayer or thanks. I guess I'm in a sparsely populated overlap area between two religions. I have rejected (for now I could change my taste in the future) New Thought. I seem to prefer a generic belief in God with Buddhism. And I do not consider Buddha to be infinite, I just consider Buddha to be the most talented Buddhist, similar to my believing Jesus was the most talented Christian. I do consider infinity to be a characteristic of the generic God that I believe in. Because as I mentioned in a different post, if infinity can't be defined exactly, and God is infinite, then God can't be defined exactly. God can be approached, but not measured. Therefore I do not see why it would be a sin to let God be God and just be present to life and to reality and to the Cosmos, to your breath, and to others, and to whatever you want to be present to as long as the being present to doesn't harm or cause pain to living things with the exception of Native American like survival including eating animals if you think your health depends on it and if it's farmed ecologically. Plants and animals compete for resources so as long as we are living we are causing a small amount of harm, but it's a matter of degree I guess, minimizing the harm as much as you can I guess.
The Kernel said:Are you proposing that if the godly-mud were removed ignorance would evaporate in to a godless utopia?
-
Permalink Reply by The Kernel on
-
Jim, I suspect your response to doone's temptation will be nil. Maybe I'm wrong but I have yet to see much original thought emerge from this entity. Right doone? doone relies on the points of others to demonstrate that his is correct. Otherwise, I'm not sure what he stands for.
I love to watch behavior because in the end, we get to see the future about to unfold into reality. Go team go.
By this I mean, let's observe this soul, as you might me, to determine if there are patterns that might suggest you are being less than up front with your intentions. Your steer us in directions by the information he feed. But, what are yout claims of qualia?
I am not physical. I am metaphysical. Is that claim OK by you?
Jim G said:Well I don't see a reply from Doone but if I might chime in to the discussion...
There would be no holy terrorists or holy wars, that would be a good start. I am sure tensions between countries like Iran would improve, as there would be no holy dictators. But I don't think "removing the mud" has to be only a "godless" belief system, in that as I use the example of my seeing Religion 2.0 as being godless, but godless in terms of ignoring God, allowing still for the optional belief in God, but ignoring God, and focusing on shared values which would be mined from religion and philosophy. A Buddhist, to me, ignores God. But a Western Buddhist at least, and probably the others if they wanted to, I'm not all tha knowledgeable about other cultures, -- a Western or any Buddhist for that matter could believe in God and just let God be God without worshipping God. In a way they would still be giving thanks to God, silently anyways, because if you believed in God and you were fully present to life that in itself would be a sort of living prayer or thanks. I guess I'm in a sparsely populated overlap area between two religions. I have rejected (for now I could change my taste in the future) New Thought. I seem to prefer a generic belief in God with Buddhism. And I do not consider Buddha to be infinite, I just consider Buddha to be the most talented Buddhist, similar to my believing Jesus was the most talented Christian. I do consider infinity to be a characteristic of the generic God that I believe in. Because as I mentioned in a different post, if infinity can't be defined exactly, and God is infinite, then God can't be defined exactly. God can be approached, but not measured. Therefore I do not see why it would be a sin to let God be God and just be present to life and to reality and to the Cosmos, to your breath, and to others, and to whatever you want to be present to as long as the being present to doesn't harm or cause pain to living things with the exception of Native American like survival including eating animals if you think your health depends on it and if it's farmed ecologically. Plants and animals compete for resources so as long as we are living we are causing a small amount of harm, but it's a matter of degree I guess, minimizing the harm as much as you can I guess.
The Kernel said:Are you proposing that if the godly-mud were removed ignorance would evaporate in to a godless utopia?
-
Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on -
As Kernel said "Over the past 200 years, science has made incredible advances. Religious understanding, by comparison has remained relatively unchanged". This is the crux of the dichotomy.
Nevertheless, the metaphoric interpretations of its ancient philosophies and wealth of historical evidences that can be drawn upon, often resonates with modern scientific thinking, which indicates certain universal harmonies that we all inevitably share. So is an interesting reservoir for science to tap in to.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim G on
-
I'm not here to judge anyone Kernel. Buddhist philosophy is a type of metaphysics.
Here's a good copy paste from Wikipedia, hopefully you will find it pertinent to a certain degree:
"Although Buddhism rejects the notion of a permanent self, it does not reject the notion of an empirical self (composed of constantly changing physical and mental phenomena) that can be conveniently referred to with words such as "I", "you", "being", "individual", etc.[10] Early Buddhist scriptures describe an enlightened individual as someone whose changing, empirical self is highly developed. According to Buddhist teachings, this phenomenon should not, either in whole or in part, be reified, either in affirmation or denial. The Buddha rejected the latter metaphysical assertions as ontological theorizing that binds one to suffering.[11]
I can relate, if I understand that correctly that is, to why, I think, I rejected Religious Science for Buddhism, which is a different type of metaphysical belief system than Buddhism. Yet I thought Religious Scientists were attached to the concept of God as well, although they believe God has been defined by their Religion. So my musings on this site have helped me to -- at this point in time anyways -- believe in God in a more humble way again -- that I am not a part of God. But I believe in a generic sort of God that can't be defined -- that can't be measured, only approached, as well as believe in Buddhism and in Buddhists as religious folk who just let God be God and focus on their own small sphere of influence. In other words, I believe in God but you won't find me singing about God.
Jim
The Kernel said:
I am not physical. I am metaphysical. Is that claim OK by you?
-
Permalink Reply by The Kernel on
-
Our discussions of god, I suspect, fall into the same trap as the discussions of those before us.
If I wanted to subdue the free thinking of others I'd become a priestly-politician and direct them to contemplate the divine mysteries of god. I would do this to ensure that people had little or no metaphysical understanding self. There is no way people can become anything more than automaton-like worshipers if they have no freakin' idea of who or what they are on anything more than a physical level. It's time to get creative and modernize the metaphors.
Once people begin to realize for example that they are essentially infinitesimal metaphysical particles of energy - unique (no cloning principle), indivisible, eternal - perspective begins to change. Blind devotional worship would no longer make sense.
There is great wisdom is the ancient text that must be appreciated - more. There is also need for modern metaphors that will have popular resonance. If I am an eternal particle how might I use relatons to, for example, control the molecules of my body?
Roman Kozlowski said:As Kernel said "Over the past 200 years, science has made incredible advances. Religious understanding, by comparison has remained relatively unchanged". This is the crux of the dichotomy.
Nevertheless, the metaphoric interpretations of its ancient philosophies and wealth of historical evidences that can be drawn upon, often resonates with modern scientific thinking, which indicates certain universal harmonies that we all inevitably share. So is an interesting reservoir for science to tap in to.
-
Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on
-
Kernel, you asked, "If I am an eternal particle how might I use relatons to, for example, control the molecules of my body?"
The metaphor of the relaton, at this point is just that, a metaphor. It represents our eternal gropings to grasp hold of something that is connected to our evolving understanding of science. It's ephemeral at the moment to us in nature. Other scientific and philosophical minds, at this moment, for all I know, in their searching, might atribute it many other different names. Yet, the relationship of particles, to which we all belong, [and of that I'm shure], as ordered vibrational frequencies, whatever name is given them, are related (hence 'relaton' from the Big Bang's continuing spread with its peppered life developments along the way.
-
Permalink Reply by The Kernel on
-
Roman, you asked, "Is Consciousness made of some kind of Matter?". Then you went on to suggest that it is as if we exist within a subtle field of "particles" called Relatons that establish relationships with all other particles. Great fun.
All I'm suggesting is that it is as if consciousness, in this case human consciousness, is coordinated or brought together by a particle known by many names - call it the self and it uses relatons to manipulate matter. You now sound like you were only fooling around and should not be taken seriously. Am I reading this wrong? Sorry if I did.
-
Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on
-
Kernel. When we discuss the science of this soup, of which we are part, and expanding (stretching, if you like), from the singularity, a field is inevitably maintained, broken-up though it is, it retains memory of its original internal structure which it carries. Relatons, as an hypothesis are an integral part of that. And to be honest, I can't even tell you if they are what we perceive as particles, because when something is stretched, it remains of the same substance. So there are in fact no gaps, no space (so to speak of as we know it) in which particles exist. But instead a widening band of coded information that carries the essence of everything within it.
You naturally use the concept of 'self' as an individuation that is mainly attributed to the human mind. Though interestingly, the 'self' divided to a quanta level, or unified to a macro whole, also appears to lend itself in significant parts to early Buddhist philosophy.
Simply put, we are a stretched entity, wherein everything that is and has been reside. I personally think this stretching out of matter as we peceive it, has in itself created the illusion of time.
Just becuase I use the term metaphor to describe the proposed concept of 'relaton' doesn't negate it form trying to establish it as a form of matter principle.
My friends and I are groping in the very dim and almost dark odf science to make some sense of this. If you have an alternate proposition, I'd like to know about it.
-
Permalink Reply by The Kernel on
-
So you're just fooling around. And, in the end, you leave yourself speechless. Nothing more to be said. You seem to be going everywhere. Nothing exists. There is no place to begin. So why talk about it. But . . . you're not speechless. You talk a lot. Not sure if you're trying to convey something or just meandering (fooling around). Soup? Singularity? Relatons? Metaphors on metaphors. It's as if there are no gaps, or space. It's as if I'm a single point that is having an experience that you don't want to talk about. . . We come into the field of action to do what - nothing? Why bother asking then if Consciousness is some kind of matter. Does it?
Roman Kozlowski said:Kernel. When we discuss the science of this soup, of which we are part, and expanding (stretching, if you like), from the singularity, a field is inevitably maintained, broken-up though it is, it retains memory of its original internal structure which it carries. Relatons, as an hypothesis are an integral part of that. And to be honest, I can't even tell you if they are what we perceive as particles, because when something is stretched, it remains of the same substance. So there are in fact no gaps, no space (so to speak of as we know it) in which particles exist. But instead a widening band of coded information that carries the essence of everything within it.
You naturally use the concept of 'self' as an individuation that is mainly attributed to the human mind. Though interestingly, the 'self' divided to a quanta level, or unified to a macro whole, also appears to lend itself in significant parts to early Buddhist philosophy.
Simply put, we are a stretched entity, wherein everything that is and has been reside. I personally think this stretching out of matter as we peceive it, has in itself created the illusion of time.
Just becuase I use the term metaphor to describe the proposed concept of 'relaton' doesn't negate it form trying to establish it as a form of matter principle.
My friends and I are groping in the very dim and almost dark odf science to make some sense of this. If you have an alternate proposition, I'd like to know about it.
-
Permalink Reply by Kenneth A LaCroix on -
I'm a first time contributor and I feel incredibly unworthy to comment in a deep meaningful way to this sophisticated material but then again thats why I am here. Let me say this regarding some of the comments from Roman and The Kernel. I am dialing this back several notches.
A friend and I were discussing God, organized religion, having a higher power etc. Her take was that language is an incredibly important to her and that we as people do an incredibly inadequate job at the description of God. My take was that if you believe in an all powerful all knowing God, the language detracts from those states. We digress into putting God in a box. That "need" for definition is provided by the ancient texts to a certain degree and by participation in the modern group. A church, for example, has a certain language that their members use with an understanding that they subscribe to. That need is met but obviously does not mesh well with scientific knowledge and the language that science uses. The Kernels point of the value of the ancient text but need of the modern metaphor is right on target IF progress could and would be made regarding advances in Religion. The Kernel said " Over the past 200 years, science has made incredible advances. Religious understanding, by comparison has remained relatively unchanged and I would speculate this in influenced by fear instilled by the priestly class on common people who are consequently afraid that is they question or challenge, they will somehow be punished." I agree to some extent. I believe the what to be accurate but as to the why that is speculation on the what o
Our conversation continued and we discussed spiritual growth that focused on self. The negative of organized religion is that the dogma instilled in members enables many to attempt to enforce the dogma on others. This misses the entire basis of applying any meaningful tools to ones self. That's a bold statement but I am sticking to principles found in the Recovery commuinity i.e."attraction rather than promotion" and "taking one's own inventory rather than anothers". Although we can share knowledge with compassion, religious/spiritual knowledge and belief are often used as a hammer and exposes not enlightenment but hypocrisy.
The attempt to explore science and come into understanding and language of what we are and what is is a fascinating noble attempt. I believe that the "this stretching out of matter as we perceive it, has in itself created the illusion of time" as Roman states has merit. To actually advance would mean change to beliefs in addition to combatting fear and the power base of the leaders of the belief system. And oh how people do NOT like change! Of all the humerous methaphors that come to mind and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will happen when "breakthroughs" occur...let me just smile and say that we may need some "divine intervention" to cope.
Keep up the good work!
Roman Kozlowski said:Kernel. When we discuss the science of this soup, of which we are part, and expanding (stretching, if you like), from the singularity, a field is inevitably maintained, broken-up though it is, it retains memory of its original internal structure which it carries. Relatons, as an hypothesis are an integral part of that. And to be honest, I can't even tell you if they are what we perceive as particles, because when something is stretched, it remains of the same substance. So there are in fact no gaps, no space (so to speak of as we know it) in which particles exist. But instead a widening band of coded information that carries the essence of everything within it.
You naturally use the concept of 'self' as an individuation that is mainly attributed to the human mind. Though interestingly, the 'self' divided to a quanta level, or unified to a macro whole, also appears to lend itself in significant parts to early Buddhist philosophy.
Simply put, we are a stretched entity, wherein everything that is and has been reside. I personally think this stretching out of matter as we peceive it, has in itself created the illusion of time.
Just becuase I use the term metaphor to describe the proposed concept of 'relaton' doesn't negate it form trying to establish it as a form of matter principle.
My friends and I are groping in the very dim and almost dark odf science to make some sense of this. If you have an alternate proposition, I'd like to know about it.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
Welcome to
Redefine God - Open Source Religion and Religion 2.0
About
Books by Amazon
Latest Activity
well put bill. It is a repeating cycle in some ways isn't it. There is nothing new under the sun that hasn't been said before. We just keep saying the same stuff in new ways is all..Thanks. .
On this journey called life, humanity will forever encounter the unexplainable, thinks that simply do not fit into our perception of this physical realm. How these experiences or events are interpreted and recorded will vary depending on date/time,…
Geezus John You have me on a role. Crack your head open and there is a pharma symbol planted everywhere. This guy got shut down because of Money. I call it the cult of pharma's. What is this a trillion dollar industry brainwashing people into thinki…
Geezus John You have me on a role. Crack your head open and there is a pharma symbol planted everywhere. This guy got shut down because of Money. I call it the cult of pharma's. What is this a trillion dollar industry brainwashing people into thinki…
YOU ARE A STUD. Read my letter to you about Ryann where I am coming from then you can understand that this is a fact consciousness is not material only. The duality though is a problem how do we have both states and how do those work I think is goin…
You know, the attention to the dying, which implies in not being horrified by the pathos of death, came first, and then came hearing to what survivors had to say about their experiences. Before that, the rule for hospital personnel was to mantain th…
© 2010 Created by Sidian M.S. Jones on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
