nac

Do I have to copy/paste a whole book's worth of information into this page? Here's my summary: Om. PS. Epistemology focuses on why we know. Phenomenology elaborates on what we know and how we know it.

Here's why this is an idle topic for a debate: http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5410 You can neither win nor lose due to the very nature of metaphysical questions, so everyone just keeps hollering at each other until they get tired and leave. Whether we can directly experience selflessness or not is a different issue, but one which you can only decide for yourself IMO.

There are completely different species within the animal kingdom which look closer to each other than the many human "races". Biologically speaking, however, this perceived difference is deceptively superficial. There is always more genetic variation within a population than between populations of different "races". We're an adaptable species. When our ancestors wandered across different parts of the world, their progeny adapted to local climates and other conditions. For example, people living next to the Baltic sea evolved one mechanism of growing blond hair, while Australian aborigines living in a southern temperate zone developed a completely different one: Europeans thought these people were mixed races, although they should've known better considering the fact that these people naturally change hair color twice in a lifetime. They're born blond, which slowly darkens to a dark brown as they mature, and then turns white with age!

Scientific epistemology and phenomenology. Scientific knowledge is necessarily a never-ending work in progress, but the methods and intellectual traditions on which it's based have been more or less finalized for about a century now. I'm especially a fan of Edmund Husserl's work. Did you know that he founded a great meditative tradition? Who knows what might have happened if it hadn't been for the Nazis?

Randi says he doesn't usually exercise this power, but he has to turn away certain nutcases once in a while for the sake of his reputation. Eg. there was this one time when a lady walked in and claimed she could give men erections telepathically. On the other hand, did you know that Randi doesn't actually have a million dollars in cash? The money exists, but in the form of corporate bonds, a massive headache to untangle and convert into usable currency. Randi doesn't hide this, it's all on his website.

Of course not, but I think it would be better to let you resolve these basic issues on your own. That would be much easier if you were the member of a Sangha, either online or offline, and/or if you had a good teacher. Whatever you do, never to distort the facts to fit theories, and you should be fine. Oops, sorry Marblehead, I thought you were someone else. So many expectations, prejudices and melatonin molecules to dispose of! Guess I'll join you at rejoicing in non-attached bliss now that that's over.

Oh no, feel free to ask away! PS. Er... How do you delete posts? ;

<double post>

Karma doesn't "determine our lives, our future, and our future lives". The above is the real Buddhist conception of how causality works. In Buddhist doctrine, Karma (meaning causality) is the factor which conditions and connects all phenomena to form an interdependent web without wholly determining them. Fate and destiny are rejected since there's always some degree of non-determinism. Quantum causality merely indicates the possible validity of such metaphysics, although the non-deterministic factor was probably regarded as the macroscopic free-will of sentient beings in traditional Buddhism, not stochastic quantum randomness. Still, there's a line of speculation in the scientific community that human brains might function as quantum computers. Quantum devices magnify quantum effects till they become apparent in the world governed by relativity so they can be stored as classical information and observed by us. Not entirely, but partly yes, according to Buddhism. When presented with many possible choices, the one action which ultimately emerges may be considered an outcome of free-will. Conditions only make outcomes more or less likely, nothing more. First of all, you've got to understand that karma is not "justice". Cold causality is part of what makes samsara an unpleasant place. The infant who sticks a fork into a power-socket doesn't exactly "pay the price" for innocent fun, right? And yet, this is exactly what karma is like, since we hurt ourselves through our own ignorance. The opposite also takes place when causality capriciously heaps great rewards upon undeserving individuals. If karmic fruition were deterministic, then salvation through human intention would be impossible since bad karma would only be purified if and when it's purification is preordained. In other words, in a deterministic universe, the child mentioned above would be destined for electrocution (by Shang Ti, say) and no human effort can avert the disaster. Buddhism rejects the idea that we can make the world a better place only when we're destined to do so. This may seem like an open-ended and purposeless universe, but fortunately, our degrees of freedom allow humans and other sentient beings to set up conditions that make just outcomes more likely, minimize suffering, etc; thereby bringing the tyranny of arbitrary karma under some measure of control. "No effects" as in no changes in the initial conditions or their sudden disappearance? Like I said, degrees of freedom may never become infinite or vanish altogether, but the probability of each result is nevertheless constrained by past conditions. An outcome may only take place if said conditions allow it to occur. So it's not like anything could happen, or that there are no impossible outcomes. Also note that some consequnces are insanely unlikely, like say, 1 in a trillion raised to a power of a trillion. We may safely call these practically impossible, unique events or miracles. I can't see how locality is implied by non-determinism. The classical interpretation of Quantum physics is, for example, both non-deterministic and non-local. Skipping over a whole bunch of off-topic (I'm not happy with "remains", etc etc.) clarifications, why not? Why wouldn't conditions apprehend consequences thousands or even billions of years into the future? Frankly, I don't understand your objections, but you seem to have assumed much higher levels of non-determinism than what anyone is proposing. Karma is causality after all, when all is said and done. All I'm saying is, the kind of conditioned acausality taught by Buddhism has been observed directly in the quantum world. Take radioactivity for example. Atoms are known to emit particles when their nuclei become unstable, but the actual event of emission is completely unpredictable. So the unstable nucleus provides a condition for radioactive emission to take place, but the event is otherwise acausal. It has been given the freedom to occur, so it takes place without rhyme or reason whenever the fancy takes it. The neutron is probably the unstable particle with the longest half-life. Keep a statistically large number of neutrons in a suitable container, and within 15(?) minutes, around half of them will have attempted to initiate a weak interaction by emitting a W- boson and turning into a proton. However, we can never hope to predict which half will have released it and which half will have maintained their stability. This is genuine science. In my opinion, the above is loosely analogous to the way in which free will operates in sentient beings, only the latter is way more complex, more layered, more rational and has relatively far-reaching consequences. If it turns out that the human brain does magnify quantum effects by using them to process classical information as is currently theorized, this would provide a strong case for the existence of free-will and non-determinism in the macroscopic world at large.

Kwan Yin? Puppet-master? :? Anyway, I perfectly agree with what you said. The emergence keeps emerging moment by moment whether we choose to be aware of it or not. _/\_ PS. On the other hand, consider the possibility that choosing to be aware of what's happening now can directly affect what occurs in the future. Happening will go on uninterrupted either way until time itself finally grounds to a halt after the heat death, I'll grant you that.

Not literally the uncertainty principle, but I guess I could cite examples of quantum uncertainty to support this thesis. In fact, Young's double-slit experiment might serve as a perfect illustration. We can predict that the pattern of dots must resolve themselves into vertical bands on the screen, but the nature of reality itself makes it impossible to foretell their exact pattern. This is especially apparent in low density regions where the dots don't run into and merge with each other. This necessarily acausal outcome is the manifestation of an inalienable degree of freedom present in the setup.

Determinism is considered a pernicious view in Buddhism, so karma is a kind of non-deterministic causality, which works like this: At each moment, the holistic web of interdependent conditions apprehend certain possible outcomes with certain levels of likelihood, but the actual results are never causally determined. Therefore, all phenomena have some degree of freedom to act independently despite being constrained by past conditions. As different choices build upon each other and result in unique future conditions, which in turn constrain future outcomes, fate or destiny doesn't exist.

So, are there any? Just curious. If there are sites which accept online donation, please post them here.

Thanks.

Just my personal opinion: It's natural if it conforms to the laws of nature. If you can retain semen using scientific laws, then it's natural, otherwise it can't be done and it's self-deception. This feels like a Buddhist interpretation though.

Do it. Washing the head with water doesn't really mean anything. If it means something to your mom, why go out of your way to annoy her?

You're both welcome! These were the videos which originally led me to register on this site. PS. I also ran across this video today: (Warning: nothing to do with Taoism) In fact, the whole channel is pretty sweet: http://www.youtube.com/user/openbuddhistforum

Well, if we're going to place our trust on our own instincts alone, then we don't have much left to discuss, do we? We cannot accept something as an axiom unless it's undisputedly observed to be true by all parties concerned. As for myself, I happen to find the existence of a truly existent "me" as defined by Buddhism to be counter-intuitive and highly improbable despite years of meditation. IMO, the fallacy of misplaced concreteness is applicable to nearly every seeming "existent" that we observe, and phenomena cognized during meditation are naturally no exception. I have no doubt that I'll be able to discover a core of "true existence" through meditation if I look for it. Especially if I want to find one on some level. The reverse applies too, of course. The problem is, I wouldn't believe either observation on it's own. You can never be too careful with techniques which come with a danger of self-hypnosis. Like I've said before, I think it would be better for us to just shut up and see clearly with minds free of hopes, fears and attachments like reputation and online debates, then set out what we have seen as clearly as possible with no attempt at self-censorship. Seriously, why do some of us seem to desire an ultimate, unanalyzable Self so badly anyway, while others seem to crave the reverse? Frankly, none of this insane melodrama makes the smallest iota of sense to me. Especially considering that according to Buddhism, we neither do exist, nor don't exist. What would any of us do differently if we didn't exist? If such a difference exists, then please take that possibility into consideration when making important decisions. That's all I've got to say. cya!

Nope, not very convincing. Try again.

I can't believe this debate is still going on. Like I've said before, in my opinion, the answer to the question of "true self" changes depending on one's definition of "true". The definition of "true" used in Buddhist logic negates the existence of any true self, but affirms the existence of many relative selves. PS. This argument will go on forever, won't it?

I'm not saying this is what you implied, but Buddhism is not a "faith-based need-based religion". Buddhas and Bodhisattvas aren't simply benevolent sky-fairies that one prays to asking for worldly goods and success, as Chinese folk religion seems to think.

Tagore. For me, nothing from western music comes even close. Sangsar Jabe Mon Kere Loy Saghana Gahana Ratri ...

A short, but important 16 year old essay by Richard Dawkins on the discontinuity in the uncritical mind. I just thought it might be interesting to remind ourselves about this subject once again. http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/dawkins01.htm