camerata Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 “Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World : Science as a Candle in the Dark https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/252618-the-demon-haunted-world-science-as-a-candle-in-the-dark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
only1 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 camerata, You are not being specific. That's the reason for misunderstandings or excuse for spinning, especially in your response to story 2. I have already made it so simple for you to choose. Am I right to say on story 2, you believe this incident/story did happen but what I described are partly true and partly false ? Let me make the end result of the incident clearer, the car, the metal antenna(a very big piece, much taller than a person) from the building, and the driver, all 3 are missing except for the piece of chasis engine found there. A big hole damage on the road, covered. I will explain the story. Just curious how people respond to it, and we can use it for study and analysis later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
only1 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 camerata, There is a Chinese saying that refers to gods, ghosts, spirits or souls that says "if you believe so, they exist; if you don't, they don't". I guess most don't understand it why is it so. Everyone behaved according to what they want to believe, and I see that based on your last 2 posts, you don't believe and start to brush off my questions and started to use other excuses. THis might be the reason why science could not approve or disprove such matters. They probably just don't want to study the matter because they choose not to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Frankly, the story isn't detailed enough to make any decision. All of the aspects could be true. People do occasionally fall into sink holes etc. I still don't see the point of the story. For sure it has nothing to do with Buddhist afterlife, the topic we are supposed to be discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
only1 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Back on story 2, I did not describe the weather, so it means the weather is immaterial to the story. Anyway, it was a fine weather day. No report of rain, windy or storm by anyone or the news. I know it's not related afterlife but use this story to show you what you don't believe on next life or rebirth based on what you know or believe could be wrong. This incident is related to karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 camerata, There is a Chinese saying that refers to gods, ghosts, spirits or souls that says "if you believe so, they exist; if you don't, they don't". I guess most don't understand it why is it so. Everyone behaved according to what they want to believe, and I see that based on your last 2 posts, you don't believe and start to brush off my questions and started to use other excuses. THis might be the reason why science could not approve or disprove such matters. They probably just don't want to study the matter because they choose not to believe it. No. Like others in this forum I think if someone makes a claim - Gods, spirits, ghosts, etc - the onus is on them to prove it. If it is proven, I will accept it. If it is not I will remain agnostic about it. But stories on the Internet are not proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
only1 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 camerata, There is a Chinese saying that refers to gods, spirits or souls that says "if you believe so, they exist; if you don't, they don't". I guess most don't understand it why is it so. Everyone behaved according to what they want to believe, and I see that based on your last 2 posts, you don't believe and start to brush off my questions and started to use other excuses. THis might be the reason why science could not approve or disprove such matters. They probably just don't want to study the matter because they choose not to believe it. No. Like others in this forum I think if someone makes a claim - Gods, spirits, ghosts, etc - the onus is on them to prove it. If it is proven, I will accept it. If it is not I will remain agnostic about it. But stories on the Internet are not proof. No one can prove them scientifically but let tell you many incidents did proved they exist. You just cannot brush them off saying what's in the internet is not true. Story 1) The 2 boys are my own younger brother and his classmate. They are 14 years old then, and I don't believe both of them together with my mum need to create the story, and my mum think the boys could not have known that old man passed away, and both boys(not just one) claimed they see the man clearly sitting there looking at them as usual when they pass by, at a distance of less than 30 feet. I think the old man's death is too sudden and he still wish to sit there or see the boys. So better say you think I created it, definitely I did not create story 2. 2) The 2nd story is a true incident and I ask you to check the internet because I know you will think I make it up. There are more to this 2nd story which only their family members and close friends know(i will tell later) The news called it a freak incident: Calculate such a chance to happen. A man caught a strange crab in front of a shrine, strikes first prize lottery with the number 1000(representing one crab), then killed off with car and body disappeared into the ground, buried forever, with only the chasis engine for identification. What's the chance of such an accident could happen if not related to spirits ? More strange and freaky if I tell you everything I heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 On 1/9/2016 at 9:57 AM, camerata said: As for nibbana, I don't see why a radical new state of mind with no suffering can't exist, and it can be proven by our own experience in this life rather than a future one. According to the scriptures, nibbana cannot be just a state of mind because nibbana is unconditioned whereas mental states are not. My heretical but rational take on this is that the experience of nibbana includes the intuitive knowing that it is unconditioned. Since nibbana is the deathless, there would be no experience of death and therefore it would seem to be unconditioned. I just discovered that in the Pali Canon the Buddha describes the Unconditioned like this: Signs of the Unconditioned (asaṅkhata-lakkhaṇa): Origination is not apparent. Disintegration is not apparent. Alteration is not apparent. I.e. The causes and conditions - if any - cannot be seen. So it seems that my theory has support in the scriptures, and nibbana could indeed be a (very special) state of mind. This seems similar to the Buddha saying that "no beginning can be found" to former lives, rather than "there is no beginning." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentRJ Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 On 1/10/2016 at 11:21 PM, camerata said: I just discovered that in the Pali Canon the Buddha describes the Unconditioned like this: Signs of the Unconditioned (asaṅkhata-lakkhaṇa): Origination is not apparent. Disintegration is not apparent. Alteration is not apparent. I.e. The causes and conditions - if any - cannot be seen. So it seems that my theory has support in the scriptures, and nibbana could indeed be a (very special) state of mind. This seems similar to the Buddha saying that "no beginning can be found" to former lives, rather than "there is no beginning." Not being able to see the causes and conditions of most things and circumstances, has been a normal state of mind for everyone throughout history. Does that means we're all fairly close to the state of Nirvana? Science is doing its best to unravel the causes and effects both within the human body and outside of the human body, but has admitted that 95% of all the matter and energy in the universe is totally invisible and undetectable. (Dark Matter and Dark Energy). In other words, the origination, disintegration and alteration of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is not apparent to anyone, and the origination of the universe as a whole, including dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter, is still mere speculation amongst just the few specialists in the field, but for most of us is definitely not apparent. Looks like 99% of us have already achieved a state of Nirvana. Is there something wrong with my logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYJAYDEE Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 On 10/1/2016 at 11:21 PM, camerata said: I just discovered that in the Pali Canon the Buddha describes the Unconditioned like this: Signs of the Unconditioned (asaṅkhata-lakkhaṇa): Origination is not apparent. Disintegration is not apparent. Alteration is not apparent. I.e. The causes and conditions - if any - cannot be seen. So it seems that my theory has support in the scriptures, and nibbana could indeed be a (very special) state of mind. This seems similar to the Buddha saying that "no beginning can be found" to former lives, rather than "there is no beginning." this definition does not match as it claims arising, disintegration and alteration don't APPEAR PERIOD. https://books.google.ca/books?id=bTCJKLZBnnwC&pg=PA348&lpg=PA348&dq=asankata-lakkhana&source=bl&ots=4k5ACoZE3l&sig=6Dy-CF5Yuw4f3TMOm8a-G8_UU7U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9ypnF2sLPAhWGtBQKHZF6DeEQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=asankata-lakkhana&f=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 It looks the same as Payutto's sutta quote to me. The definition doesn't say "there is no arising," it says "no arising appears." "Appears: to come into sight; become visible." It's like someone calculating Pi to a billion decimals and saying, correctly, "they appear unending" as opposed to "they are unending." I guess it depends on the connotations of the Pali words used, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentRJ Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 To expand on this distinction between, "there is no arising," and "no arising appears", (of Origination, Disintegration and Alteration) I have the following question. Are we talking about true and real origination, disintegration and alteration, which the art of science is all about discovering, or are we talking about the misconstrued, illusory, tricks of the mind, appearance of origination, disintegration and alteration? For example, it is quite apparent, and really very obvious that the sun encircles the earth. We see the sun rise in the east, and traverse across the sky to set in the west. How could the sun not encircle the earth? If the earth were encircling the sun, travelling at an enormous speed, it would be like living in a constant gale-force wind, surely. For thousands of years, the best minds of the day have assumed that the earth was the centre of the universe, with just a few exceptions. The Catholic Church in particular insisted it was true, and threatened to torture Galileo unless he renounced his ridiculous theory that the earth encircles the sun. So my question is, does Buddhism place both of these views (geocentric and heliocentric) in the same category of being mere appearances? Or, to put it another way, would the Buddha have been aware of these competing models, Geocentric and Heliocentric, and advised against speculating on which was true? From a search on the internet, it seems that the heliocentric model could have existed in ancient India before the Greeks thought of it, according to the following quote. "What supports the contention that it could have existed in India before the Greek astronomers developed it, is that in Vedic literature the Sun is referred to as the 'center of spheres' along with the term Guru-tva-akarshan which seemingly refers to the sun. The Vedas are dated around 3000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. Thus the heliocentric idea could have existed in a rudimentary form in the days of the Rig Veda and was refined further by astronomers of a later age." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 We are talking about the knowledge the Buddha acquired/attained about nibbana, as a result of his enlightenment. It seems to me that the Buddha was aware that this was experiential knowledge and so he phrased the description accordingly (i.e. not in absolute terms) while using it as a working assumption for his teachings. Those who believe the Buddha was omniscient would probably disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYJAYDEE Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 On 10/4/2016 at 11:54 PM, camerata said: It looks the same as Payutto's sutta quote to me. The definition doesn't say "there is no arising," it says "no arising appears." "Appears: to come into sight; become visible." It's like someone calculating Pi to a billion decimals and saying, correctly, "they appear unending" as opposed to "they are unending." I guess it depends on the connotations of the Pali words used, though. well, as it was translated into English from the original I, for one, wouldnt profess to know what he actually meant but I interpret it as saying "there is no arising" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nausea Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 On 1/9/2016 at 9:56 PM, luk AJ said: Why would somebody believe in afterlife? Suppose afterlife does not exist and suppose people wouldn't believe in afterlife, would this not make our actual existence more valuable? Indeed. Read Dostoevsky, in particular those passages relating to people facing execution. An enlightened person would maintain this attitude on a daily basis. This man knows of what he speaks, having faced execution himself. A future life, a past life - what significance does it have? We live in the moment, or at least we should. Most people don't, of course, they live in the future or the past, but that's a false life, your real life is here and now. Even if a heaven or hell existed what possible relevance could it have to my current existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale59 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I'm too busy living to care.Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.