Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are many theories on reincarnation.
Advaita looks at the body as merely an instrument of pleasure and pain, which decays from the day it become sentient, dies, and returns to earth. Hindus cremate the body.
What remains, and is eternal, is the Atma, the awareness. It does not go anywhere, it is unlimited and unconditioned, and exists always.
What leaves is the mind along with the desires and karma. It becomes sentient again per the karma that attaches to it, into the cycle of death, birth, death just like all of nature that we observe.
These are ontological theories about the mind and it can be measure only by ontological arguments and tools.
Science observes and measure what is material. Science is not the method to understand the mind.
You would be wise to brush the chip off our shoulder.
Neither one of us is going to know how the other one fares in the next life, or even how we will fare in our next life.
First of all, there needs to be some proof of a "next life" that involves your current being. Other than the atoms in my body that may end up in some plant or animal down the road, that's it. I'll be wormfood, just like the rest of us.
By "science", I meant no empirical evidence supporting the possibility of a living body raised to life after rigor mortis had set in. Do I need to be a licensed medical doctor to state this fact? Don't conflate this with what science has yet to discover.
Why are you so defensive about this?
You've been making quite a few statements about "science". It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask someone doing that if they have an actual background in science. If this were a medical forum, and I was making comments about tachy-brady syndrome, and someone asked me about my medical background, I'd have no problem saying that I have no medical background, just commenting based on my personal experience.
Whether you have or don't have any formal training in science does not affect whether you have a right to post here. It may affect the value some of us place on your posts. I see nothing unfair about that.
Even as a Buddhist, I agree with you that there is no "empirical evidence" for reincarnation, or many of the topics that we discuss here. That doesn't necessarily mean those things, such as reincarnation, don't exist.
I have B.S. and M.S. Degrees in Geology, with a Master's emphasis on invertebrate paleontology of the early Paleozoic. I'm not saying that because I want you to think "oh wow". Here's my point: After 13 years of teaching earth science, I went into educational administration. About 5 years ago I thought it was time, just for personal edification, to catch up a bit on what's been happening in geology in the 47 years since earning my M.S. and the 35 years completely out of the field. So I bought two current college textbooks -- one his physical geology, the other in historical geology. It took me half a year to read those two texts. Not because I'm a slow reader, but because I had to refresh my memory about so many things (and the internet was very useful for that), but also because I had to acquaint myself with so very much "new science" that, in some cases was not even around back in the early 1970s. In other cases, such as with plate tectonics, so many assumptions in the 1970s had evolved -- corrections to previous misconceptions, and other ideas that were pretty much new territory. Again, it was fertile ground for using the internet to catch up. One of the beautiful things about science is its ability to "self-correct". But the problem is, that before it self-corrects, it's also wrong. And a better place to see that than in geology is in medicine.
I have a lot of faith in science, but I also know science has its limitations. Having or not having empirical evidence is not always the answer to all of man's questions. Part of thinking scientifically is NOT closing one's mind to possibilities. I'm an atheist now, but I remain somewhat open-minded about the topic of things related to world views.
First of all, there needs to be some proof of a "next life" that involves your current being. Other than the atoms in my body that may end up in some plant or animal down the road, that's it. I'll be wormfood, just like the rest of us.
First of all, there needs to be some proof of a "next life" that involves your current being. Other than the atoms in my body that may end up in some plant or animal down the road, that's it. I'll be wormfood, just like the rest of us.
This is correct, but it just refers to your physical body, NOT the "YOU" we are conversing with on this forum. The composition of the "YOU" is not in any form capable of being consumed or transformed by worms or any other processes we currently know about.
By "science", I meant no empirical evidence supporting the possibility of a living body raised to life after rigor mortis had set in. Do I need to be a licensed medical doctor to state this fact? Don't conflate this with what science has yet to discover.
that's not what reincarnation is.
it appears you are ignorant of (lacking knowledge and information) what reincarnation is.
resurrecting the dead, or bringing a dead body back to life, is not reincarnation.
There are many theories on reincarnation.
Advaita looks at the body as merely an instrument of pleasure and pain, which decays from the day it become sentient, dies, and returns to earth. Hindus cremate the body.
What remains, and is eternal, is the Atma, the awareness. It does not go anywhere, it is unlimited and unconditioned, and exists always.
What leaves is the mind along with the desires and karma. It becomes sentient again per the karma that attaches to it, into the cycle of death, birth, death just like all of nature that we observe.
These are ontological theories about the mind and it can be measure only by ontological arguments and tools.
Science observes and measure what is material. Science is not the method to understand the mind.
Why not? Consciousness is the state of awareness. Hindus call it the Atma. It's the same thing. Empirical consciousness research is an ongoing project across multiple disciplines involving neuroscientists, psychologists, philosophers from the west and India.
You've been making quite a few statements about "science". It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask someone doing that if they have an actual background in science. If this were a medical forum, and I was making comments about tachy-brady syndrome, and someone asked me about my medical background, I'd have no problem saying that I have no medical background, just commenting based on my personal experience.
Whether you have or don't have any formal training in science does not affect whether you have a right to post here. It may affect the value some of us place on your posts. I see nothing unfair about that.
Even as a Buddhist, I agree with you that there is no "empirical evidence" for reincarnation, or many of the topics that we discuss here. That doesn't necessarily mean those things, such as reincarnation, don't exist.
I have B.S. and M.S. Degrees in Geology, with a Master's emphasis on invertebrate paleontology of the early Paleozoic. I'm not saying that because I want you to think "oh wow". Here's my point: After 13 years of teaching earth science, I went into educational administration. About 5 years ago I thought it was time, just for personal edification, to catch up a bit on what's been happening in geology in the 47 years since earning my M.S. and the 35 years completely out of the field. So I bought two current college textbooks -- one his physical geology, the other in historical geology. It took me half a year to read those two texts. Not because I'm a slow reader, but because I had to refresh my memory about so many things (and the internet was very useful for that), but also because I had to acquaint myself with so very much "new science" that, in some cases was not even around back in the early 1970s. In other cases, such as with plate tectonics, so many assumptions in the 1970s had evolved -- corrections to previous misconceptions, and other ideas that were pretty much new territory. Again, it was fertile ground for using the internet to catch up. One of the beautiful things about science is its ability to "self-correct". But the problem is, that before it self-corrects, it's also wrong. And a better place to see that than in geology is in medicine.
I have a lot of faith in science, but I also know science has its limitations. Having or not having empirical evidence is not always the answer to all of man's questions. Part of thinking scientifically is NOT closing one's mind to possibilities. I'm an atheist now, but I remain somewhat open-minded about the topic of things related to world views.
Looks like you have some training in geology, a science that deals with the Earth's physical substance and structure. So far, we have tunneled less then 8 miles below the Earth's surface. That's barely scratching the surface of a planet with a center some 4000 miles deep. In that context, does your academic background mean anything? I have not asked you what you did in that 47 years to beef up your credentials as a shallow expert on the structure and substance of the Earth. So, can we dispense with book learning expertise and converse like unassuming laymen?
Looks like you have some training in geology, a science that deals with the Earth's physical substance and structure. So far, we have tunneled less then 8 miles below the Earth's surface. That's barely scratching the surface of a planet with a center some 4000 miles deep. In that context, does your academic background mean anything? I have not asked you what you did in that 47 years to beef up your credentials as a shallow expert on the structure and substance of the Earth. So, can we dispense with book learning expertise and converse like unassuming laymen?
that's not what reincarnation is.
it appears you are ignorant of (lacking knowledge and information) what reincarnation is.
resurrecting the dead, or bringing a dead body back to life, is not reincarnation.
Is there anything else other than the body? Look in the mirror and tell me if there is anything else?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
