The Relationship Between Religious and Philosophical Taoism

[rene]

Which is kinda why I am trying to establish some sort of consensus agreement ...

A "consensus agreement" might be about as valid as the blind men deciding which one of them is right about the elephant.

 

Maybe when you get to China you can ask a Daoist.

[Stigweard]

A "consensus agreement" might be about as valid as the blind men deciding which one of them is right about the elephant.

 

Maybe when you get to China you can ask a Daoist.

[goldisheavy]

So we can see that the terms "Religious" or "Philosophical" Taoism is totally dependent on where you individually draw that shifting line of distinction.

 

I'm surprised this is new to you. It all comes down to this: Do you believe it's possible to be spiritually inclined without being religious? If you believe that, then you have to define religion as something separate and distinct from spirituality, as a necessity of that belief. If you believe it's impossible to be spiritual outside religion, then your definition of religion will obviously mirror that.

[Marblehead]

I'm surprised this is new to you. It all comes down to this: Do you believe it's possible to be spiritually inclined without being religious? If you believe that, then you have to define religion as something separate and distinct from spirituality, as a necessity of that belief. If you believe it's impossible to be spiritual outside religion, then your definition of religion will obviously mirror that.

 

Well, it appears that I have the opportunity to totally agree with GiH so I am going to do so.

 

I totally agree.

 

Peace & Love!

[Easy]

It all comes down to this: Do you believe it's possible to be spiritually inclined without being religious?

 

Adding the word spiritual to the discussion puts yet another worm in the can. Without a decent definition it can get pretty fuzzy and shifty also. I think that those who subscribe to the Spiritual But Not Religious Religion (which is steadily being formalized, not in churches but on the workshop circuit) have a strong affinity for the numinous, but an aversion to authority and solidity.

 

I am sure someone has defined spiritual to everyone's satisfaction on this site, but being new I haven't had the opportunity to read it. Can anyone remember?

[Stigweard]

I am sure someone has defined spiritual to everyone's satisfaction on this site, but being new I haven't had the opportunity to read it. Can anyone remember?

You don't ask much do you The chance of "everyone" finding consensus on what anything at TTBs is like 1:10^1000000.

 

 

But I do think it is a worthy task to get some "fuzzy lined" definitions going on. I am content to say that I am a "Religious Taoist" because, firstly, I don't have the negative connotations ingrained in me to the word, and secondly, because of my own definition of "religion" the tradition I follow "fits". Saying that I am admittedly closer to the fuzzy line than say Orthodox Taoism which fits closer to what GiH is describing.

 

On that note, I do believe one can be spiritual without being religious.

[Marblehead]

 

On that note, I do believe one can be spiritual without being religious.

 

 

Yea!!!

 

Peace & Love!

[forestofclarity]

Religion in my mind usually had two key components: ritualized practice and accepting certain things on faith. By faith, I mean on a basis on other than direct experience.

 

By this definition, both Buddhism and Taoism may have a religious component. But I would expect that most so-called mystic practitioners shy away from the faith side of things. Even pure Theravada Buddhism would have some religious tones: there are rituals, chantings suttas, etc. and also a faith in the Buddhist path. Without some degree of faith, then one is unlikely to even begin practice.

 

I'm not sure what spiritual means, either. I suppose I would consider myself a spiritual person, but all of my cultivation is more of a psychological or even a physical characteristic. I don't see spirits, hear the voice of god, etc. although I have had altered states of consciousness. Maybe a better term for some of us would be psycho-philosophers.

[rene]

Maybe a better term for some of us would be psycho-philosophers.

Oh that's good.

 

Psycho-philosophers dont need faith: they already believe they know what the hell they're talkin about.

[Stigweard]

Religion in my mind usually had two key components: ritualized practice and accepting certain things on faith. By faith, I mean on a basis on other than direct experience.

 

By this definition, both Buddhism and Taoism may have a religious component. But I would expect that most so-called mystic practitioners shy away from the faith side of things. Even pure Theravada Buddhism would have some religious tones: there are rituals, chantings suttas, etc. and also a faith in the Buddhist path. Without some degree of faith, then one is unlikely to even begin practice.

 

I'm not sure what spiritual means, either. I suppose I would consider myself a spiritual person, but all of my cultivation is more of a psychological or even a physical characteristic. I don't see spirits, hear the voice of god, etc. although I have had altered states of consciousness. Maybe a better term for some of us would be psycho-philosophers.

Faith is such an interesting word, it essentially means to "have trust".

 

I think any spiritual tradition, whether or not it is religious, has an element of faith in it. For instance I have faith or trust that my teachers actually know what they are talking about even though I presently don't have experiential knowledge about it. Through observation, I have faith that the cycles of change will continue in their constant pattern. I have faith that my De is always guiding me, regardless of whether or not I listen, toward a path of harmonious integration.

 

But faith doesn't necessarily mean "blind unquestioning faith". So when Laozi says, "Before Heaven and Earth were born there is something formless, complete in itself," I don't just go, "Yes that's the way it is because Laozi said so." More to the point I think, "Well now that's really interesting. I personally have never been to the 'place' before Heaven and Earth were born so I cannot say whether Laozi is right or wrong. But these sages have climbed the mountain a lot longer and a lot more successfully than I and so I will trust in their advice enough to head in the direction the suggest so that I can jolly well find out for myself. Until then I suspend final judgment, neither believing nor not believing."

[Birch]

This is a nice thread!

 

Stig, I only saw you I think with one definition of religion. You didn't (or no-one else did) mention the Latin root-word "religare" (tie, bind etc) and I'm sure there is a follow-through and an evolution of that word. I'm not sure if "religion" existed/exists as a term used by the people in the places where the practices and philosophies had their origin and progression. Do you know of any terms that could come close?

The term "religion" certainly exists for many of us here - with differing degrees of appreciation;-) The gap is worth taking into account IMO.

 

So I wonder, did any kind of term for "Taoism" exist per se for the people who were practicing the techniques and philosophies throughout much of the history we are discussing? From your post, it didn't seem that way.

 

I'm presently thinking that a number of practices and philosophies exist(ed) and that the compilation of them into a body of knowledge, the "ownership" of that body of knowledge and the mediation between the "lay" people and that body of knowledge is where "religion" was/is. I don't agree that ritual is a necessary component of religion. I get up every morning and have coffee (and I direct a certain amount of gratitude for that every day;-)) although that's possibly just a worldly corruption of the original term;-)

[Stigweard]

[goldisheavy]

Seems like many people wonder about the meaning of "spiritual."

 

A spiritual person is someone whose life is dominated by spiritual concerns as opposed to physicalist ones. Now I am going to use the word physicalist instead of materialist, because if I say materialist people get confused between two meanings of "materialist": 1. greedy for things, 2. a worldview that says that the ultimate essence of the world is matter-energy. So I think the word "physicalist" is much more clear in meaning.

 

What are the physicalist concerns? Things like getting food, getting a roof over your head, procreating with the mind of creating a line of descendants on Earth (other motivations for procreating can move it beyond physicalism, but if you procreate for the sake of establishing your name/blood upon this planet, it is a purely physicalist concern). Acquiring things based on need and based on desire. This includes anything from a toothbrush to the flat panel TV set and a BMW or Lexus or McLaren F1. Physicalist concerns stem from a strong belief in physicalism. I don't want to make this post book-long, so look it up if you don't already know what it is in detail. So basically all concerns that treat the body as a bio-robot, and any concerns related to desperately prolonging the use of the bio-robot via material and social advantages are all physicalist concerns. As a rule all physicalist concerns are for this life only. Physicalism doesn't allow one to think about after-life or next life or rebirth or any such thing. To a physicalist this life is all there is, and the goal is to take everything from the world that you can get away with before you die. Once you die, everything is erased, there is neither punishment nor reward nor continuation of any kind, so if you don't get caught, you're golden. Also physicalist does not much care what happens to Earth after one's death. Sure, there are children to worry about, but this is not that important.

 

I spend a lot of time describing a physicalist mindset because spiritual mindset will depend on this too. A spiritual person is like a complement to all this. Like the missing half.

 

A spiritual person is one whose life is dominate by spiritual concerns. Spiritual are all non-physical concerns. Therefore the survival of bio-robot body is not that important, now it's just a tool for a higher task rather than a goal in and of itself. Going hungry is sometimes OK either as a spiritual sacrifice/contemplation, or as a health improvement, or other training. Sometimes going without a shower or without basic things is OK. Not having a place to sleep is OK. What matters is one's understanding of oneself, of one's mind, or the tendencies that manifest in the world and how those tendencies connect to one's psyche and so on. A spiritual person cares about after-life either in the form of a heaven/hell or in the form of next life or something like that. Basically this life is not the end and physical matter is not the ultimate substance to a spiritual person. In a special case a spiritual person becomes a non-physicalist, which is to say, completely refuses to acknowledge a substance that exists independently from mind. And you can imagine how this affects one's concerns in life.

 

Notice I say "dominated". A spiritual person can still have physical concerns. A physicalist can have spiritual concerns. What determines whether or not you are spiritual is which concern is the guiding one in your life. Which one is the most important. Which concerns dominate? That's what will determine whether you are spiritual or not.

[Marblehead]

Oh that's good.

 

Psycho-philosophers dont need faith: they already believe they know what the hell they're talkin about.

 

That was funnier the second time I read it. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Interesting stuff in the last couple posts.

 

To Stig's post concerning 'faith': I rarely use the word 'faith' because it has so many connotations. In matters where 'blind faith' would be required I just ignore the subject and consider it not worrying about. It really doesn't matter how things got started - what is of concern is how I should best live my life. I also believe that spitituality does not require 'faith' and this leads me to something GiH said.

 

A spiritual person cares about after-life either in the form of a heaven/hell or in the form of next life or something like that.

 

I don't totally agree with this. Here is why:

 

I hold to the understanding that for (wo)man there are only four 'basic needs'. These being: food, shelter, clothing & security. Security includes physical and psychological. Psychological security includes the concept of spirituality. That is, how we are connected spiritually with all other things.

 

Most spiritual paths I have bcome aware of include what you spoke of as well as a direct link to some religion. Native American spirituality has no link to any set religion. There aree also aspects of NA spirituality that have nothing to do with an after-life but rather concentrate on our connectedness with all else and teach that we should respect and protect all else on this planet.

 

I do not concern myself with what will become of me when I die. I have no control over that. But I can take action (or not) concerning those things I come into contact with in the here and now.

 

So, in my mind, spirituality concerns how I am connected with and how I effect all other things. Nothing more.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

After-life (after-life is a bad word... more accurately it would be after-death, because life is not something that has before or after) follows logically if you understand that physicalism is false. Just investigate boundaries. Do boundaries have own-substance? (check it out). The answer is no, they do not. Therefore, anything that's delineated by boundaries also has no own-substance. Thus identity has no own-substance. Thus birth and death are illusory. This means being born is an illusion and dying is one two. It doesn't mean birth doesn't happen or death doesn't happen. Illusions do happen! So you can conclude that after-life exists in the same way tomorrow exists.

 

You are not living in tomorrow, but you act like tomorrow is definitely coming for you. Right? Of course you do! We all do.

 

You must then understand this one fact: there is no difference between tomorrow and any other date in the future from POV of NOW. Tomorrow is the same as 1000 billion years from now. In other words, there is no reason to believe in death as a nihilistic dissolution of awareness.

 

Since awareness has to exists on both sides of the boundary to be cognizant of said boundary, awareness exists before birth and after death, or else you can never know your own death.

 

These are all very good reasons. If you don't believe me, try to pick on them and see what happens.

 

You can say that a spiritual person is someone whose life is dominated by non-physical concerns. I did say that. As a rule spiritual people do believe in death not being the end. If you consider yourself spiritual and yet you believe death to be the end, you're in the minority, and that's fine too. I was just speaking of the common case and I appreciate a reminder that the common case is not all there is.

Edited October 10, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

Hi GiH,

 

Very nice post.

 

Yes, I guess you will have to throw me in that 'minority' basket.

 

We will never agree on the concept of 'life before birth' or 'life after death'. I hold to a contradictory understanding of the concepts. Mine are based in the concept of 'change'.

 

But I agree that what you presented is an excellent generalized collection of thoughts. I think it is fair to say that most people do hold to the concept of some form of 'life after death'.

 

Yes, I live in the 'now'. Yesterday is gone and tomorrow isn't here yet. I have no promise of a tomorrow but I will try to live my life in such a manner so that I do not screw my tomorrow up if I am fortunate enough to have one.

 

And when all my tomorrows are used up that will be the beginning of a new beginning, not the end of anything. No, I have no idea what the new beginning will be. Should I concern myself with the question? IMO, No. Who am I to think that I know the unthinkable?

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

We will never agree on the concept of 'life before birth' or 'life after death'. I hold to a contradictory understanding of the concepts. Mine are based in the concept of 'change'.

 

This sounds intriguing. I hope one day you have the energy and inclination to go into more detail about your concept of 'change' and how it leads to a belief of death being the end of awareness.

 

But I agree that what you presented is an excellent generalized collection of thoughts. I think it is fair to say that most people do hold to the concept of some form of 'life after death'.

 

Most spiritual people, yes. I think either a 100% or near 100% of all physicalists believe that awareness arises and is dissolved as a function of matter-energy configuration. And I don't believe this (of course I am not a physicalist either, so this shouldn't be surprising).

 

Yes, I live in the 'now'. Yesterday is gone and tomorrow isn't here yet. I have no promise of a tomorrow but I will try to live my life in such a manner so that I do not screw my tomorrow up if I am fortunate enough to have one.

 

I think pretty much all people believe this.

 

Why not live in such a manner that you don't screw up 1 trillion days from now as well? That's the question.

 

I think the longer people are able to look into the future, the more moral they become. We see this in the business sector all the time. Executives that look for short-term advantage tend to run companies into the ground. It stands to reason that long-term thinking is the best all around, unless you believe you won't be there when something collapses or goes wrong. So for example, executives feel free to run the company into the ground because they know they will have a good life outside the company, as they get to keep their looted wealth even post-demise of the company. A very similar thing happens with people. If you think your own awareness will not suffer personally in the far future, then you may make decisions that hurt future generations of people, because you might think, "Well, I won't be there... so who gives a damn what happens after I die?" Indeed many people live exactly like that! I knew many of them personally. (especially back in exUSSR this was a very dominant mentality, expressed in Russian as "Posle menia, hot' potop." It translates as "After I am gone, I don't care even if there is Noah's flood that consumes the planet and obliterates everything" The word "potop" is a subtle reference to the Biblical passage about the world-wide flood.)

 

And when all my tomorrows are used up that will be the beginning of a new beginning, not the end of anything.

 

There is nothing in the world that's radically new, and there is nothing in the world that's radically old (or radically similar). Try to think why and how this might be the case. Alternatively, try to come up with even just one example of a radically new thing or radically old thing (or event, or thought, or any experience).

 

This is what Buddhists mean when they say that phenomena do not enter into any extreme of existence (is, is not, neither is nor is not, both is and is not). As a result Buddhists call their teaching a non-extremist teaching. I am not a Buddhist, but this is one of the things I like in Buddhism. Buddhism does have subtly extremist elements, as would any doctrine, but at least Buddhism tries to alert you to the dangers of extremism at the deepest level of cognition.

Edited October 11, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

100% of all physicalists believe that awareness arises and is dissolved as a function of matter-energy configuration. And I don't believe this (of course I am not a physicalist either, so this shouldn't be surprising).

 

I agree.

 

Why not live in such a manner that you don't screw up 1 trillion days from now as well? That's the question.

 

I think the longer people are able to look into the future, the more moral they become. We see this in the business sector all the time. Executives that look for short-term advantage tend to run companies into the ground. It stands to reason that long-term thinking is the best all around, unless you believe you won't be there when something collapses or goes wrong.

 

The wider range of perception one has in relation to the moment, the more true to the moment one will be in relation to absolutely everything.

[goldisheavy]

The wider range of perception one has in relation to the moment, the more true to the moment one will be in relation to absolutely everything.

 

Well said.

[Marblehead]

Hi GiH,

 

We will never agree on the concept of 'life before birth' or 'life after death'. I hold to a contradictory understanding of the concepts. Mine are based in the concept of 'change'.

 

This sounds intriguing. I hope one day you have the energy and inclination to go into more detail about your concept of 'change' and how it leads to a belief of death being the end of awareness.

 

I had no awareness of anything prior to my birth. I have never heard of anyone who can honestly say they had awareness of anything prior to birth. I have never seen any scientific study that has ever presented varifiable proof and evidence that anyone has ever had awareness of anything prior to birth.

 

The same applies to after death.

 

I will not say it is impossible. All I am saying is that there is no logical reason to believe in such a thing.

 

However, change is a given. It is observable everywhere one looks. Things come into being, live their allotted life, then die. This is observable everywhere one looks.

 

So if awareness did not occur until after birth why would I think that awareness would continue to exist after death? That just is not logical not does it stand up to reason if we consider the processes of change.

 

But then, everything that I am, when I die, will become a part of something else. Food for the bugs, etc.

 

Most spiritual people, yes. I think either a 100% or near 100% of all physicalists believe that awareness arises and is dissolved as a function of matter-energy configuration. And I don't believe this (of course I am not a physicalist either, so this shouldn't be surprising).

 

Hehehe. It is obvious that you do not believe this. Nope, no surprise. So go ahead - label me a physicalist.

 

I think pretty much all people believe this.

 

Why not live in such a manner that you don't screw up 1 trillion days from now as well? That's the question.

 

I think the longer people are able to look into the future, the more moral they become. We see this in the business sector all the time. Executives that look for short-term advantage tend to run companies into the ground. It stands to reason that long-term thinking is the best all around, unless you believe you won't be there when something collapses or goes wrong. So for example, executives feel free to run the company into the ground because they know they will have a good life outside the company, as they get to keep their looted wealth even post-demise of the company. A very similar thing happens with people. If you think your own awareness will not suffer personally in the far future, then you may make decisions that hurt future generations of people, because you might think, "Well, I won't be there... so who gives a damn what happens after I die?" Indeed many people live exactly like that! I knew many of them personally. (especially back in exUSSR this was a very dominant mentality, expressed in Russian as "Posle menia, hot' potop." It translates as "After I am gone, I don't care even if there is Noah's flood that consumes the planet and obliterates everything" The word "potop" is a subtle reference to the Biblical passage about the world-wide flood.)

 

Well, I have in a way done what you suggest. Before I stopped working I made sure that my life would be comfortable no matter how long I live. But remember, how long I live is fixed by physical possibilities. My goal is 116 years. That is within possibilities. As long as there is not great catastrophy I will be comfortable to that time.

 

There is nothing in the world that's radically new, and there is nothing in the world that's radically old (or radically similar). Try to think why and how this might be the case. Alternatively, try to come up with even just one example of a radically new thing or radically old thing (or event, or thought, or any experience).

 

This is what Buddhists mean when they say that phenomena do not enter into any extreme of existence (is, is not, neither is nor is not, both is and is not). As a result Buddhists call their teaching a non-extremist teaching. I am not a Buddhist, but this is one of the things I like in Buddhism. Buddhism does have subtly extremist elements, as would any doctrine, but at least Buddhism tries to alert you to the dangers of extremism at the deepest level of cognition.

 

This is a valid point regarding the word "new". From the viewpoint of the One there is never anything "new". There is also never an end not a beginning.

 

But viewed from the point of "change", every change is the end of what was and the beginning of something new.

 

I like the saying: Today is the first day of the rest of your life. This is a fact. Haven't liked you life to this point? Well, makes the changes that will allow for a new and better life.

 

I wouldn't call living in the Manifest an extremist activity. It is the way it is supposed to be. But to understand that this manifest form (me, Marblehead) will not live forever is a given. And that what "I" am will one day become something else is also a given. No, I have no idea what will become of all that I am composed of. I have no idea what will become of my personal Chi. Probably get lost is space. Who knows?

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

I had no awareness of anything prior to my birth.

 

But you don't remember being born either. The only evidence you have of being born is indirect. You have to take other people's word for it. Don't you think that's a little suspicious?

 

I have never heard of anyone who can honestly say they had awareness of anything prior to birth.

 

I've heard of such cases.

 

I have never seen any scientific study that has ever presented varifiable proof and evidence that anyone has ever had awareness of anything prior to birth.

 

This is absurd. How could such proof ever be presented? If pre-birth experiences are real, they are like dreams. How would you give evidence of a dream before birth? There is no way! Even those we consider alive cannot give solid proof of their dreams. We just take their word for it. You can measure brainwaves, but there is no way to definitively associate brainwaves with dreams.

 

That's one.

 

Second, amnesia is a well documented fact. People with amnesia do not remember anything. This doesn't mean nothing happened to them within the space of time that amnesiacs fail to remember.

 

Third, not everyone remembers their dreams. This doesn't mean dreams do not occur.

 

These are pretty basic and well accepted facts.

 

The same applies to after death.

 

No it doesn't. If there is a dream-like state after death, how would you prove it? You cannot. The dead person is no longer a part of your dream but that doesn't mean their own perspective is gone. Let me illustrate it this way. When someone goes to sleep, then in your view, this person becomes a motionless body. But from the dreamer's view, they are in a different world that looks as real as this world here with possibly other people there. Whose view is the right one? Outside of bias, there is no way to say.

 

I will not say it is impossible. All I am saying is that there is no logical reason to believe in such a thing.

 

Yes there is a logical reason to believe such a thing. I told you many reasons. You're just not as logical as you think. You can prove the reality of before-birth and after-death awareness through simple logic. Start with the boundary analysis and take it from there.

Edited October 11, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

Hi GiH,

 

Pretty frisky mood you got there so early on a Sunday morning. Hehehe.

 

But you don't remember being born either. The only evidence you have of being born is indirect. You have to take other people's word for it. Don't you think that's a little suspicious?

 

Nope. I don't remember being born. I remember taking a walk with my mother when I was about two years old so I suggest that it is a given that I was born. No, I don't have to take anyones word for the fact that I was born. We don't emerge from eggs - mammals are all born. That a process of nature.

 

I have never heard of anyone who can honestly say they had awareness of anything prior to birth.

 

I've heard of such cases.

 

Okay. I will rephrase my statement. I have never heard of anyone who claims to have been aware of anything prior to birth that has ever been proven to be an actual fact based upon conclusions resulting from an investigation using the scientific method.

 

I have never seen any scientific study that has ever presented varifiable proof and evidence that anyone has ever had awareness of anything prior to birth.

 

This is absurd. How could such proof ever be presented? If pre-birth experiences are real, they are like dreams. How would you give evidence of a dream before birth? There is no way! Even those we consider alive cannot give solid proof of their dreams. We just take their word for it. You can measure brainwaves, but there is no way to definitively associate brainwaves with dreams. That's one.

 

Second, amnesia is a well documented fact. People with amnesia do not remember anything. This doesn't mean nothing happened to them within the space of time that amnesiacs fail to remember.

 

Third, not everyone remembers their dreams. This doesn't mean dreams do not occur. These are pretty basic and well accepted facts.

 

So are you suggesting that I should believe the delusions of people who think they have omniscient powers? You can't be serious.

 

Amnesiacs cannot be discussed in this type of discussion.

 

It is true that everyone does not remember their dreams. But not all people dreams in a depth where they had any realization of dreaming so they basically did not dream. Yes, there are those who say that everyone dreams. I do not agree with this assessment.

 

The same applies to after death.

 

No it doesn't. If there is a dream-like state after death, how would you prove it? You cannot. The dead person is no longer a part of your dream but that doesn't mean their own perspective is gone. Let me illustrate it this way. When someone goes to sleep, then in your view, this person becomes a motionless body. But from the dreamer's view, they are in a different world that looks as real as this world here with possibly other people there. Whose view is the right one? Outside of bias, there is no way to say.

 

I cannot prove any of this because it does not exist. Noone can prove that something that does not exists just as noone can prove that something that does not exist does not exist.

 

But even to dreams - you cannot prove that the dreams was real outside the dreamer's own mind. Therefore it was an illusion. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

So all I am saying is that if you have no proof of the existence of something why believe it in the first place? All we would be doing is confusing our illusions and delusions with our reality. You did not get laid last night, you masturbated - doesn't matter what you dreamed.

 

Yes there is a logical reason to believe such a thing. I told you many reasons. You're just not as logical as you think. You can prove the reality of before-birth and after-death awareness through simple logic. Start with the boundary analysis and take it from there.

 

None of your reasons stood the test of logic. Therefore I hold to no reason to hold to illusions or delusions. You have not proven reality of before-birth or after-death awareness. All you have proven is that you believe in such matters. I do not. There are no boundries. There are the processes of nature. Understand the processes and we will understand that there are things that lie within the realm of possibilities and other things lie outside the realm of possibilities. But that doesn't mean that things won't change some time in the future or that they may have been different at some time in the past. There was a time on Earth when no living creatures existed. There will be a time in the future when Earth will no longer be able to support life. That's just the way it is.

 

Peace & Love!

[forestofclarity]

I think GIH has come to the very heart of the spiritual debate.

 

Is awareness generated from the body, as the physicalist may say, or in some way independent of it?

 

If I were a physicalist, I would say no. I would say that alive means oxygen/nutrients are flowing into the brain and the brain is creating a sense of being. Once that supply is cut off, the awareness shuts off like a light switch.

 

Now, I might not be able to draw a boundary between a lighted room and a dark room, but it is clear when the light is on and when the light is off. The same goes for Zeno's paradox where you cannot travel across the room because first you would have to travel 1/2, but before that, 1/2 of that, etc. Just because you can draw an infinite number of points doesn't mean you can't walk across the room.

 

How would you respond to such an argument, GIH?

 

 

Start with the boundary analysis and take it from there.

[Sloppy Zhang]

None of your reasons stood the test of logic. Therefore I hold to no reason to hold to illusions or delusions. You have not proven reality of before-birth or after-death awareness. All you have proven is that you believe in such matters. I do not. There are no boundries. There are the processes of nature. Understand the processes and we will understand that there are things that lie within the realm of possibilities and other things lie outside the realm of possibilities. But that doesn't mean that things won't change some time in the future or that they may have been different at some time in the past. There was a time on Earth when no living creatures existed. There will be a time in the future when Earth will no longer be able to support life. That's just the way it is.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Actually, I think GIH's points were pretty logical.

 

I mean, think of how we reason in general: we take what we know from our experiences and theorize on how they can be applied to other situations. In GIH's examples you can take dreaming, obviously the perception and provability of the phenomenon have issues, but they still exist, so it's not really that much of a jump to apply it to death.

 

The problem is PROVABILITY. And for a lot of people, THAT'S the problem. Not the logic or reasoning behind the point.... but proving it.

 

But there's a lot of stuff that we haven't really proven but that still goes on all the time so..... yeah.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Sloppy Zhang