Science vs. Religion: (Chapter Two) [David vs. Guth et al] (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 20, 2011, 16:46 (4820 days ago) @ David Turell

David,
> Your complaint about your dreams, and I consider the complaint the fact that they puzzle you, you should read more Feynman if you haven't. He could recognize he was dreaming and could then control the dream and steer it in directions he prefered. That consciousness is a fundamental part of reality I have no doubt: my wife dreams of things that happen, not perfectly, not all the time but enough to disturb her, She also 'sees' events at a distance when they occur, as I have mentioned before. She also can tell me where something is that I have misplaced, even if it is up in the barn, under something so that it is currently not visible.
> -Yes, the technique is called 'lucid dreaming' and this is something that I myself have been able to do. The difficult part is finding that balance of asserting too much control. Too much and you wake up. But these dreams are slightly different. They feel different. But even a universal consciousness doesn't explain how a future event--however inane--can be viewed.-> As for cycling, that rings of your Buddhist experiences. If I remember correctly, a Buddhist estimate of the universal cycle is about 4 billion years, but science says we are at 13.7 byo and counting. As for cyclilng within current universal time, which you seem to be applying, again circles witin circles, if consciousness is part of reality, why not. We repeat our thoughts, and I firmly believe that our minds are a small indication of that counsciousness.
> .-The tradition I followed was Soto Zen; and Zen traditions by far are different from your textbook versions of Buddhism. First, a bit of historical context. The cycles really are an artifact of Hinduism, and in a very real way, Buddhism was a social rebellion against the caste system. Nirvana is seen as a release from the cycles of birth/rebirth, and the shattering part for Hinduism was that this was possible even for the untouchables in the caste system. Traditional Hinduism reserved leaving the cycle only for your Brahmans or upper-caste. -But even back then, the Buddha's teaching was more radical than that. It is generally agreed that one of the experiential tenets of Buddhism is that death doesn't happen. Which sounds laughable, but they do hold that the part of us that is not our mind--our consciousness--is the same entity for all people, and that it is not tied to the body. The 'soul' if you will.-While many Buddhist traditions still hold to the old tenet of the Hindu cycle of death/rebirth, Zen traditions view that teaching as historical, needed only to get people that want an afterlife into Buddhism. The Buddha often spoke of his teachings as only a "raft" to get to the other shore. Death/rebirth being such a "raft." Zen views the cycles as part of Buddhist Psychology--that death and rebirth are terms that happen in our life now. Same thing with Karma.-One final thought... the afterlife in Zen is taught as something that is a kind of clinging that causes suffering. A true Buddhist is able to be light enough of spirit that the need for an afterlife goes away. I learned that this is the same for all Buddhist traditions, but I'm not so sure--it might be a tenet of the monastics, but not necessarily the lay people.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"