Maddie

Fair enough, I'll have to read that later when I have a little more free time.

Of course the experience of imagining is real, even neuroscience will say as much, but that does not mean that the thing imagined is real, unless of course its Kings Cross train station immediately after destroying a horcrux by sort of dying.

This makes me think of the story where some of the Buddha's disciples asked him why he didn't often preform displays of super natural power to convince people of his dharma. Basically the Buddha's answer in a para-phrased nutshell is that magic tricks don't help people understand the dharma which in turn does not lead to the end of suffering so it is of little use. The only power he did say was useful was the power to teach the dharma effectively.

The Buddha said birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering, not getting what one wants is suffering, getting what one does not want is suffering, impermanence is suffering, delusion is suffering. Tell me what is the appeal to existence in Samara if this is the experience?

The goal of science isn't to invalidate anything (though this may happen as a by product) but rather to validate what can be measured and observed. It is for this reason that I used the word "base line".

And why do we need to grow at all? Or be at all?

Imagination is the ability of the mind to visualize and think about things that are not currently present. One can imagine a pizza in their mind without actually having a pizza. There is value in wanting to quantify the reality of things otherwise we open ourselves up to delusion. If I were to tell you that last night a twenty foot tall unicorn princess appeared to me and said I need to spread the word that all who do not worship the unicorn princess and make regular cash donations to her priest (the priest being me) will be doomed to eternity in hell would probably cause you to want some sort of proof before feeling obligated to worship the unicorn princess and make your cash donation. Investigating the validity of this claim would be reasonable. The first thing you would want to know most likely is how to know if I wasn't just making this up or having some sort of hallucination as a result of a substance or a form of neurosis. You would want to know by what means I could show you this was true.

The reason I think it is a fair base line is because the materialist atheist has a point we are able to prove the existence of what we can measure and observe from an objective point of view. Things that we can not do this with become problematic to "prove" objectively. This is not to say that our instruments can detect everything yet (something I think science forgets) but at the moment at least there are supernatural claims that go beyond the means of science to measure. So how do we demonstrate that these things are "real" and not just the workings of the imagination?

Yes fair enough. So if you're willing to bear with me here I will attempt to show you how this works. First tell me what is it that you believe causes someone to reincarnate in the first place?

That's the baseline in the west I was referring to.

If you become enlightened you are not reborn. It's one of the main aspects of enlightenment.

If enlightenment is the end of suffering permanently how is it sad?

Yes, detachment sounds crazy to the attached.

Generally in Buddhism when someone claims to be enlightened the first test is to see if they can be angered. An enlightened being will have no sexual desire An enlightened being will have no desire for powers

You don't prove the non-existence of things you prove the existence of things. I could say you cannot disprove that the entire world exists on a hair on the back of Jake the dog sort of Horton hears a who style. But the burden of proof is on me if I make such a claim to prove that it is true.

Doesn't sound like you need one either.

That is a good point though I have noticed from watching hardcore materialist atheists on YouTube that they will reject any arguments for the supernatural just as out of hand as a fanatical religious person will reject anything that contradicts their religion out of hand.

What about starting from the baseline of the materialist atheist who says there is nothing beyond the physical reality that science can verify and that all these other things that we think of as being metaphysical are just the brain's ability to abstract?

I agree with this assessment. Initially my interest in Buddhism started with Zen and Tibetan Buddhism but I suppose being raised Protestant I began wanting to know more about the original Indian stuff and I think I found it more nihilistic and somehow took the color and all out of things in my opinion.

I guess I hadn't checked in for a while if I wasn't aware of that thread. I also remember Dawg several years ago. I think he claimed enlightenment but when challenged on this got frustrated and left. He had some interesting posts nevertheless.

If you are speaking for the Hindu point of view on consciousness and I think you are then to me it begins to almost seem like the difference of perspective on consciousness from the Hindu point of view and the Buddhist point of view or the question rather is is consciousness a thing or a function? Based on what I think I understand as your explanation it seems to me that Hinduism explains consciousness as a thing. Buddhism on the other hand seems to explain consciousness as a function or at least from the perspective of the five skandas. The thing versus function debate seems to tie back into the self or no self issue.

While reminiscing on this forum what ever happened to Drew Hempel and Dawg? Those were some interesting characters but I don't see them anymore.

When one is asleep isn't one by definition unconscious? Therefore wouldn't there be no consciousness at this moment? On another topic regarding consciousness that I am confused about it would seem in the 12 links of dependent origination that consciousness exists as a "thing" between lives that gives rise to rebirth, but when speaking about the 5 skandhas it seems to suggest that consciousness arises as the result of the 6 senses, so not sure what to make of that unless these various types of consciousness are not the same thing.

Can you elaborate please?

How so? In what way?