Nonbelievers and Buddhism

Meadmaker said:
But the contemplation that I did when I was practicing Buddhism wasn't mystical.






And again, that's the difference between Christianity and other religions. An inherent part of Christianity is belief in Jesus. It defines the religion. If one accepts Jesus Christ, one is a Christian. Then, if you accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, you also have to accept his teachings, because he's God, and you can't go around telling God you don't agree with him.. Of course, what he said was incredibly vague, so if that other guy gets his teachings wrong, you might have to burn him at the stake, but that's a side issue. The important thing about being a Christian is that you believe.

Not so with Buddhism, or even with Judaism. You can reject 90% of Buddhist teachings and still be Buddhist.

However, I will concede one point. There are in fact gods and magical thinking in Buddhism, and I have been persuaded that my exposure to Buddhism in the west has probably colored my view that those elements aren't all that significant. However, that doesn't make Western Buddhists any "less Buddhist". It's just not that kind of religion. As someone put it earlier, cherry picking is ok, and maybe even encouraged, in Buddhism.
Click to expand...
You'll have to forgive me for wondering why you would label 10% of something as still being that thing?

Contemplating the Universe as a 10% Buddhist? Seriously?
 
NordaVinci said:
At the risk of being scientific.....are you up to date with science? Are you not aware of the Measurement Theory in Quantum Mechanics? If not, that would be a good place to start.

If you are completely aware of that, then you can easily understand that consciousness precedes matter. Electrons for example are not forced...by "physical" force to do anything.....at any particular time or place....That's why only probability can be used to try and predict the "behavior" (as in shopping habits for example).
Click to expand...
I believe you are interpreting the mass and velocity problem of the electron and the Schrödinger's catWP "thought experiment" in your own personal way.

Certainly nothing in quantum mechanics leads me to believe Rev Moon knows anything except how to snooker people by tossing out a few scientific terms and putting on the facade of actually knowing anything about science. (Except he likely does know about the science of persuasion.)

You've been conned.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I believe you are interpreting the mass and velocity problem of the electron and the Schrödinger's catWP "thought experiment" in your own personal way.

Certainly nothing in quantum mechanics leads me to believe Rev Moon knows anything except how to snooker people by tossing out a few scientific terms and putting on the facade of actually knowing anything about science. (Except he likely does know about the science of persuasion.)

You've been conned.
Click to expand...

Rev Moon knows the way to the bank too.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You'll have to forgive me for wondering why you would label 10% of something as still being that thing?

Contemplating the Universe as a 10% Buddhist? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Buddhist denominations are so varied, I'd be surprised if they share as much as 10% in between them. I mean, look at Theravada and Pure Land. Or Zen and Tibetan Buddhism. It might as well be completely different religions, if it hadn't been for that small little core, the Four Noble Truths.
 
Ryokan said:
Buddhist denominations are so varied, I'd be surprised if they share as much as 10% in between them. I mean, look at Theravada and Pure Land. Or Zen and Tibetan Buddhism. It might as well be completely different religions, if it hadn't been for that small little core, the Four Noble Truths.
Click to expand...
And the Buddha...
 
Dancing David said:
So many issues to discuss here..but picking up the one that is most relevant to the current thread...you replied regarding parity violation:

Which exactly 'parity' violation and how does that demonstrate consciousness?

This:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19521

First of all that's a very interesting news article from 2004, that exactly brings up the issues that I am concerned with from a physics perspective.

To further formulate the questions/issues, please note:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1957/yang-lecture.pdf

C H E N N I NG Y A N G
The law of parity conservation and other
symmetry laws of physics
Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1957

(From p7 of the 11 p talk...)

In fact one is tempted to speculate, now that parity conservation is found to be violated in the weak interactions, whether in the description of such phenomena the usual concept of space and time is adequate.


Much earlier, Einstein was driven to speculate that "time itself is suspect". (citation available upon request, cause I'll have to flip through my four books on or by Einstein to find it.)

Just to give a simple explanation that is also experiential:

Electrons in the double slit experiment can of course be visualized as being distributed in space, such that one electron fired at the target can be visualized as passing through both slits at the same time and interfering with itself. But is this all that is happening? If that is all that is happening, one might expect to see the electron hit the same spot on the target every time. But we know that alternating light and dark columns form that indicates the whole group of electrons ...over time....is forming a balanced interference pattern.

Quantum mechanics promotes the concept (this is me talking by the way) of "non-locality in both time and space", and that we should visualize the electron not only as distributed in space (two or more places at the same time), but also that we should visualize the electron as being distributed in time (two or more times at the same place). The quantum theory of a single electron being distributed in time allows us to assume that there is a 4th axis(time) along which significant "energy/force/information/measurement/particle exchange" happens. This is "consciousness". Such information is in the light. This in fact should not be viewed as "paranormal" but as "normal". It explains evolution better than any "materialistic theory". In other words...every single quantum mechanical entity is now "normal" and explains what many have termed "paranormal".

The amazing thing is that everyone can experience this for themselves by paying close attention to the sense of sight. Look very carefully and pay close attention to what you see. What information is really there, and how much of it is actually "external-physical" and how much of it is "internal-but just as physical"?

also interesting....
http://www.physicsbanter.com/theory-relativity/77535-do-quantum-non-locality-relativistic-print.html
Click to expand...
 
PS Also interesting...

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html

(from which I quote the following...)

"A more objective alternative interpretation of the quantum mechanics formalism is the transactional interpretation (TI) proposed a decade ago by the author. A reprint of the original paper[7,8] can be found on the web at http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti .

The transactional interpretation, a leading alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, uses an explicitly nonlocal transaction model to account for quantum events. This model describes any quantum event as a space-time "handshake" executed through an exchange of retarded waves (y) and advanced waves (y*) as symbolized in the quantum formalism. It is generalized from the time symmetric Lorentz-Dirac electrodynamics introduced by Dirac and on "absorber theory" as originated by Wheeler and Feynman[9,10]. Absorber theory leads to exactly the same predictions as conventional electrodynamics, but it differs from the latter in that it employs a two-way exchange, a "handshake" between advanced and retarded waves across space-time leading to the expected transport of energy and momentum.


This advanced-retarded handshake, illustrated schematically in Fig. 1, is the basis for the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is a two-way contract between the future and the past for the purpose of transferring energy, momentum, etc, while observing all of the conservation laws and quantization conditions imposed at the emitter/absorber terminating "boundaries" of the transaction. The transaction is explicitly nonlocal because the future is, in a limited way, affecting the past (at the level of enforcing correlations).

To accept the Copenhagen interpretation one must accept the intrinsic positivism of the approach and its interpretation of solutions of a simple second-order differential equation combining momentum, mass, and energy as a mathematical description of the knowledge of an observer. Similarly, to accept the transactional interpretation it is necessary to accept the use of advanced solutions of wave equations for retroactive confirmation of quantum event transactions, which smacks of backwards causality. No interpretation of quantum mechanics comes without conceptual baggage that some find unacceptable. "
 
NordaVinci said:
Am I to understand that you are avoiding the issue.....?
Click to expand...

What issue? That Buddhism has something --anything at ALL -- to do with quantum physics? Because it DOESN'T. That's the issue, and I'm not avoiding it, rather addressing it directly.

You seem to have missed the point that quantum mechanics should not even be discussed in the same fricking HEMISPHERE as Buddhism, and that line of conversation is not only absurd at best, but also an enormous derail of this thread.

I happen to agree with that...
Click to expand...

...yea, no you don't. ;) Your views are opposite mine. Because I don't confuse science with ancient mysticism. Also because I never said anything this crazy:

electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it.
Click to expand...

No they don't, and no it is NOT.

I am definitely saying, that all particle/energy has measuring capacity which generates the known forces of physics. That measuring ability is also responsible for consciousness and the different states thereof.
Click to expand...

WTF??? :boggled: You are "definitely saying" something that absolutely makes no sense. Seriously dude, you are making no sense at all. I mean, the ability of a particle to be measured is responsible for different states of consciousness? And right before that you said electrons themselves have conscioiusness? :confused: :confused: :confused: You are either confused about the definition of the word consciousness, or the word electron. Please read the links, as the real definitions are not what you think.

Stop mixing real science with New Age mysticism. Please. They do not belong together. This is the only type of segregation I'm in favor of.

NordaVinci said:
Quantum mechanics promotes the concept (this is me talking by the way) of "non-locality in both time and space", and that we should visualize the electron not only as distributed in space (two or more places at the same time), but also that we should visualize the electron as being distributed in time (two or more times at the same place). The quantum theory of a single electron being distributed in time allows us to assume that there is a 4th axis(time) along which significant "energy/force/information/measurement/particle exchange" happens. This is "consciousness". Such information is in the light.
Click to expand...

Please stop. :bwall I seriously can't take much more.

This in fact should not be viewed as "paranormal" but as "normal". It explains evolution better than any "materialistic theory". In other words...every single quantum mechanical entity is now "normal" and explains what many have termed "paranormal".
Click to expand...

:bwall :bwall :bwall Dude, none of your links had ANYTHING to do with consciousness, meditation, or Buddhism. NONE OF THEM.

NordaVinci -- with your posts here, you have actually attempted to explain Buddhism, quantum mechanics, advanced physics theories, evolution, the paranormal, the 4th dimension, electron movement, radio frequencies, and consciousness. You have attempted to use these unrelated topics as a basis to explain some of the other topics. You have also attempted to logically discuss quantum physics in a thread discussing Buddhism (of all things) without derailing it. You have failed at all of it.

Again, please - PLEASE stop confusing real science with New Age woo.
 
I've held off on posting my thoughts on the topic of this thread for a while. It has gotten complicated for me.

A few years ago, I argued with someone or other that there was such a thing as philosophic (as opposed to religious) Buddhism. I meant by this that there were groups of Buddhists who held a worldview that was without magic, religion, and superstition. I readily acknowledged that many schools of Buddhism are religious in nature and have some supernatural beliefs.

This is in contrast to most other religions where I have found no significant atheistic parallels.

I was religious for about twenty years and have been interested in the history of religions since my teens. I have found thought-provoking things in several religions, although other aspects of those religions have made those things of little use to me over time.

I have found several aspects of philosophic Buddhism that resonate with other things in my life. They haven't become as distasteful to me as similar things in other religions/philosophies.

I have cherry picked a few things and left the rest behind - a practice that I heartily recommend for all philosophies.

Whether there really is such a thing as 'philosophic Buddhism' doesn't matter much for me these days. I'll borrow things of value and ignore the rest.
 
Complexity said:
I have cherry picked a few things and left the rest behind - a practice that I heartily recommend for all philosophies.

Whether there really is such a thing as 'philosophic Buddhism' doesn't matter much for me these days. I'll borrow things of value and ignore the rest.
Click to expand...

This seems like the most logical approach, but I do have a question for you...

Do you call yourself a Buddhist?
 
Would the following statement be typical or atypical of Buddhist meditation and why or why not:

"The first barrier to be broken in meditation is the barrier of time."

And does somebody know who I am quoting? (It's not a scientist, Rev. Moon, or myself.)

And I sure hope that everybody who "knows" something about Buddhism at this thread, at least knows that meditation has something to do with Buddhism.
 
Anybody want to talk about Nichiren Shoshu at this thread, (Nam Myho Renge Kyo - paraphrased by some as "Honor to the Principle of the Universe that is the Simultaneity of Cause and Effect") Has anybody been to their meetings and chanted with them? Do you have the Gohonzen in your home? etc. etc. This form of Buddhism is very popular in America, Japan, and possibly elsewhere.
 
Complexity said:
No, I don't. Too much superstitious debris comes along with that term, fairly or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Which is the EXACT reason I found it curious that there are people (on this thread and elsewhere) who identify themselves as Buddhist and atheist.

If you're just cherry-picking philosophy ideas, self-help phrases, or whatever, does that make you Buddhist? Does ascribing to like 5% of a religion let you claim that religion? I don't condone adultery, murder, or theft, but I do not call myself Christian to appear less militant to the religious. I like roasted lamb and romaine lettuce, but I wouldn't call myself Jewish, either.

I understand people can do and say whatever they want, but it's just weird to me that people will claim a religion they clearly don't practice, well... religiously.

ETA- Complexity - you do know I'm not attacking you with all this. Unless you had claimed to be a Buddhist, that is... ;)
 
Last edited:
And yet I understand what I think is going on when an atheist skeptic identifies himself or herself as a Buddhist.

I don't identify myself as one, but I'm not sure that I'm that different from a few atheist skeptics on these forums that do identify as one. Perhaps a difference in degree rather than kind, and perhaps having a difference in comfort level with the terminology.

Labels like Buddhist can carry a complex of meanings, only a few may be seen to apply. Some people are more comfortable with that ambiguity than I am.
 
Last edited:
MikeSun5 said:
Which is the EXACT reason I found it curious that there are people (on this thread and elsewhere) who identify themselves as Buddhist and atheist.

If you're just cherry-picking philosophy ideas, self-help phrases, or whatever, does that make you Buddhist? Does ascribing to like 5% of a religion let you claim that religion? I don't condone adultery, murder, or theft, but I do not call myself Christian to appear less militant to the religious. I like roasted lamb and romaine lettuce, but I wouldn't call myself Jewish, either.
Click to expand...

The question is whether that percentage you accept is essential.

For instance, for some widely accepted definitions of "Christian" belief in Jesus as a personal savior is essential, and thus sufficient to define a Christian despite other held beliefs. The moral disapprovals you listed are neither essential nor unique, neither is enjoying lamb essential or unique to Judaism, (for some definitions of which either having a Jewish mother, or purposefully converting is essential)

If in adopting Buddhism, essential elements are not discarded, then the label fits.
 
Cavemonster said:
The question is whether that percentage you accept is essential.

If in adopting Buddhism, essential elements are not discarded, then the label fits.
Click to expand...

Quite true. Anyone can call themselves anything they want, and there will always be adherents of whatever philosophy/religion who don't think the former is adherent/devout enough.
I was just wondering if there were any underlying reasons some felt the need to take on the title of Buddhist. Because I thought of a few. ;) If I was wrong, that's cool. Of course, like Meadmaker mentioned earlier, I'm finding it hard to separate Buddhist philosophy from the Buddhist religion -- probably because of my Christian upbringing. I mean, if it smells like a religion and quacks like a religion and all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom