• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Buddhism and observable truths

tara said:
(I'd like to mention that saying "Buddhism" is like saying "Christianity": there's a lot of variance in both theory and practice, depending on which flavor you're working with.)

Alan Wallace is great! I particularly like The Four Immeasurables: Cultivating A Boundless Heart and would recommend it above the other suggestions actually, because I find it to be both a practical introduction to a basic and powerful meditation practice, and also a positive and warm volume. It's so easy for us Westerners to sound so damn cold and unfeeling when talking about the Dharma, you know? It ends up sounding like nihilism, which is so far from the truth. I mean, look at the word "suffering" -- that's a weighted term, yeah? We're using a single English word to approximate a Sanskrit term, dukkha (<- this wikipedia article is pretty good), and it's one that pretty much comes off as a negative on first glance. Words totally have power, and it's easy to immediately assume we know what something means upon hearing them, based on our own personal dictionary.

IME, psychedelics are tools that can help facilitate a shift in perception and perspective.

Meditation can be many things, and there are many methods, at its core meditation refers to the training of the mind. There are practices aimed to quell discursive thought, practices to encourage sudden insight, visualization practices, practices to cultivate awareness... and can certainly have some trippy, sensory effects!

The thing about Buddhism is that it's a path of self-exploration (hence why it is said that truth is observable: you can only really "know" it through direct experience. It can't be granted to you by another), and I think that seems unusual in this day and age because we're so used to the way organized religion works (the hierarchy, the middleman between you and the divine). Please don't assume I am trying to put down organized religion, it's not like there isn't any of that in buddhism! But there's certainly a difference between having a dialoge with a priest versus having a direct relationship with the divine/God (there's no reason that the former needs to exclude the latter actually, but that's another discussion). When you come down to it, all paths lead to the same goal: unification, non-duality.

I think too much attention is put on the Four Noble Truths. Not to suggest that they are unimportant, but it's so easy for us in the west to read "life is suffering" and recoil, get stuck right there. It sounds so negative and cold! Plus what does the fourth tell us? Follow the Eightfold Path. To so many of us, doesn't that sound a lot like "don't sin, follow these instructions, and you'll get to go to heaven"? It's so, so easy to use our own reference points and make assumptions about what is being said. I'm not suggesting I have some greater wisdom to offer to the world, but I do feel it could be useful to reframe the conversation and the language used.
Click to expand...

All very good points =) have you read Mind and Life? Its a discussion with the Dalai Lama, Alan Wallace, a few Buddhist monks and a range of philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists its all the most cutting edge science bounced off the Dalai Lama, Alan Wallace and various monks and its written so as not to sound dry the guy illustrates the conversation beautifully its a really magnificent book.

I agree the eightfold path can seem like a set of rules no different then Christianity or Judaism but I think as an intro to Buddhism the four noble truths are a place to start.

I didn't mean to come off dry at all as Buddhism is a path with heart hence why Mahayana emphasizes compassion and love so much.

I agree psychedelics can help shift perceptions and perspective but I believe people get sucked into that world and so often become fixated on mind-altering chemicals as a means to insight and enlightenment and that can cause major problems. Ive seen to many people go down the wrong road and think drugs provide all the answers, or end up using them as a means towards happiness, long term happiness and peace is not derived from drugs.

Good points about getting stuck on the life is suffering point and never getting any further at one point in my study of Buddhism I was stuck there and it creates a bleak and nihilistic attitude towards life which is completely against what Buddhism is going for.

I think many Westerners do see Buddhism as nihilistic though because:

According to the Mādhyamikas, all phenomena are empty of "self nature" or "essence" (Sanskrit: Svabhāva), meaning that they have no intrinsic, independent reality apart from the causes and conditions from which they arise.

I think we are taught a strong sense of self in our education and Buddhism negates the idea of a static entity that exists in and of itself in Buddhist philosophy there is no inherently existing self.
Though Madhyamika is actually the middle way almost like a balanced tuning fork between nihilism and eternalism. But being liberated from the idea of a self is freedom, you are not defined as good or bad, happy or sad you are able to see that all physical, mental and "external" phenomena are transient phenomena lacking self-nature, interdependently arising and subject to impermanence. Its freeing and leads to true peace, whereas nihilism leads to suffering and sorrow but at first I think it is difficult for a Westerner to let go of the idea of a self.

At the same time Buddha talks about being stuck on being or non-being which is also delusion in the end all concepts are a finger pointing at the moon and you cant say that there is a self or not a self as neither are ultimate truth just conventional truth, ultimate truth is experienced through meditation.
 
stonerfromohio said:
You have not investigated the studies at all, not hearing something on the news or popular news outlets does not take away the credibility from something. He interviews children claiming to remember past lives he listens to the information they tell him regarding their previous lives and then he goes and confirms the information with the previous families these cases claim to have been a member of in their previous life. Often times he takes the child with him and the child points to each member of the family saying this is so and this person is so and so and then reveals family secrets which no one outside the family could know. You have to investigate it yourself before you discredit something, or your not being scientific at all your dismissing something that doesn't fit into your worldview because you believe it to be untrue that's not open minded or scientific.
Click to expand...


Listen, my point is that you seem like you're trying to imply that reincarnation is without a doubt proven, and then you reference this researcher with credible studies and what not...
I'm simply saying, its a study, it doesn't prove it without a doubt.

I can find you a study proving almost anything. Studies are like assholes, everyone has one these days.

Like I said before, I'm not discounting the idea that reincarnation might exist.

And my point still stands, we currently lack the technology/methods to prove reincarnation.
 
Last edited:
There is no technology involved he finds kids who claim reincarnation, interviews them they tell all they know of a family they have never met sometimes hundreds of miles away he goes to the family confirms the details.
 
stonerfromohio said:
There is no technology involved he finds kids who claim reincarnation, interviews them they tell all they know of a family they have never met sometimes hundreds of miles away he goes to the family confirms the details.
Click to expand...

Soooooooo my point still stands.... ;)

Do we currently have a way to prove that reincarnation exists? Physically?
Using science?
No, we don't.
 
His findings were peer reviewed published in scientific journals... he is the head of personality studies at the university of Virginia he is a scientist... what do you mean physically were his findings not done in the physical world?

"There’s a saying, 'Science only changes one funeral at a time.'"
 
Last edited:
There's no doubt that these case studies are interesting and provide evidence for reincarnation. The problem is, they also provide evidence for other hypotheses, for instance that the kids have ESP, or that have been subliminally programmed or whatever with this information. I'm not trying to suggest that either of these is the explanation; I'm just trying to demonstrate that, as with most data, there are various models that offer a possible explanation. If you believe that reincarnation is the most plausible explanation of this phenomenon, that's fine, but there's an element of faith here, the evidence is not conclusive. To say that reincarnation has been proven would be helping oneself.
 
I looked at his Wiki page he did say that his research by no means absolutely proves it, but he believes that there is reason for a rational person to believe in it.

Ian Stevenson stands out from most other researchers of ‘fringe’ topics due to his scientific professionalism. He avoids any sort of ‘hyping’ of his data, going as far as to say:

"All the cases I’ve investigated so far have shortcomings. Even taken together, they do not offer anything like proof. But as the body of evidence accumulates, it’s more likely that more and more people will see its relevance."

Nevertheless, Stevenson does say "I think a rational person, if he wants, can believe in reincarnation on the basis of evidence". This is no doubt due to the convincing nature of some of his cases. Take the case of Swarnlata Mishra, born in India in 1948. Not long after turning three years old, she began suggesting that she lived at a different address and with a different family. On the basis of the information she provided, Stevenson was able to track down this ‘previous life’. What’s more, she then provided more than 50 specific facts about this person which were verified by the ‘former’ family. In particular, she identified members of the family from a large group of visitors, and even her ‘son’ despite him protesting for more than a day that he was not.

Apart from simply elucidating cases of reincarnation, Stevenson’s research has also provided some recurrent features. These include:

* Most past lives are recalled by children between the ages of 2 and 8, and forgotten after this point.
* Often ‘announcing dreams’ occur, in which the deceased tells someone in the family they are about to be reborn to them.
* There is a high incidence of violent death in the persons whose lives are remembered.
* That birthmarks can occur which correspond closely in size and location with a wound causing death in the previous life.

It is this final point which perhaps gives Dr Ian Stevenson’s research some serious evidential clout. Much of his more recent research has focused on identifying injuries in the claimed past life which match up to birthmarks and birth defects on the claimant, even going back through autopsy records in order to ensure maximum evidence is available for the claims. Of these cases, he says they "provide the strongest evidence we have so far in favor of reincarnation." Other convincing cases uncovered by Stevenson involve xenoglossy, the ability to speak a language never learned (in this life at least), combined with evidential memories of times long past.

Stevenson’s dedication to his work has continued through the decades, despite complaints from his University alumni concerning the nature of his research, and even pleas from his wife to not ruin a promising career. Most people profess their amazement at the energy he devotes to the research – when journalist Tom Schroder traveled with him during the writing of his book Old Souls: The Scientific Evidence for Reincarnation, he could barely keep pace:

"Even though he was on the eve of turning 80, his stamina was astounding. Ranging far outside the cities in both Lebanon and India, relentlessly logging 12-hour days seven days a week in often inhospitable environments, he rarely betrayed the slightest fatigue. It was all I could do to keep from begging him to take a break."

However, Stevenson is under no illusions as to the chances of his work being recognised by mainstream science before his advanced years catch up with him. On being questioned by Shroder on this, he dryly noted:

"There’s a saying, 'Science only changes one funeral at a time.'"

Nevertheless, Stevenson's contribution is respected for its scientific integrity, and the fact that he has made it so despite it being a paradigm-breaking topic. In the Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, Dr Harold Lief wrote of Ian Stevenson: "Either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known as the Galileo of the twentieth century."
 
stonerfromohio said:
His findings were peer reviewed published in scientific journals... he is the head of personality studies at the university of Virginia he is a scientist... what do you mean physically were his findings not done in the physical world?
Click to expand...

Dude seriously?


First off, he was a scientist. He is dead.

Let me ask you; if you wanted to design an experiment to check for reincarnation, how would one go about it?

Being published in a peer reviewed journal hardly makes it fact.

First off, there are many counter explanations for his findings. A quick google turns out countless finds.
Second, he himself never claimed to believe in reincarnation, but simply that for some of the cases he encountered it was the best explanation, but for some of the cases it was NOT the best explanation.
Thirdly, one of the biggest criticisms of his work is that it lacks physical evidence. There is no way to prove physically that a person after death travels into another body, ie reincarnation. Stevenson himself even made it important to stress this fact, and he always referred to his studies as "cases that suggest reincarnation"
He obviously felt like his work had merit, but never once claimed that it was irrefutable.

Ya dig?
:)


EDIT**
Ah, looks like you did some wiki reading.

Good, I take it we're on the same page now then?
 
Last edited:
I'll have to add Mind and Life to my to-read list, as I really do like Alan Wallace's written voice. That stuff is really fascinating...

stonerfromohio said:
I think many Westerners do see Buddhism as nihilistic though because:

According to the Mādhyamikas, all phenomena are empty of "self nature" or "essence" (Sanskrit: Svabhāva), meaning that they have no intrinsic, independent reality apart from the causes and conditions from which they arise.

I think we are taught a strong sense of self in our education and Buddhism negates the idea of a static entity that exists in and of itself in Buddhist philosophy there is no inherently existing self.
Click to expand...

Mmm, I take issue with the wording of your quote and feel that it might be more accurate to say that Svabhāva is more the inherent lack of independent self -- I only bring that up because the word "empty" used here could be confused for "emptiness" (Śūnyatā), another one of those imperfect word-for-word translations... Emptiness, Śūnyatā, isn't a void or absence or a lacking -- really, it's more like... the sky.

I definitely agree with your point, that we are taught to be independent in a certain way or more importantly, to be attached to our "independence". But we do so in such a way that ignores the inescapable fact of our interdependence, or puts the two at odds with each other and provides us with a very narrow and alienated view of our place in thd world when really, we all share the same true nature, that of Bodhicitta ("enlightened mind") -- and we're all connected to one another, we're no different from one another, we're all the universe/the divine/etc. (we're all made of star-stuff! :D)

I think it comes down to not being attached to our Self, letting go of the ego. That's not to say that you are not you, that "me" is not me -- just that we should not be fixated on what makes us unique (you are not a beautiful, unique snowflake). And also, regarding the nature of phenomena? There is a Tibetan quote that goes something like: "When in the shape of a cow, enjoy the taste of grass" i.e. we are inside the phenomenal world, that is not to say we should not derive pleasure from it. It's attachment to pleasure, avoidance of pain that we need to watch for.

I unfortunately need to pack for the weekend (won't return until Monday night ), so must cut myself off here. OP, I hope you enjoy your retreat this weekend! <3

Oh and for the record, I'm not touching the reincarnation stuff. If there's anything to it, I certainly don't have the mind to comprehend it at this time and I don't think many (if any) of us do right now, either. :) I think it could be an "observable truth" -- if it is indeed a truth -- but certainly not a measurable or quantifiable one.
 
Last edited:
I got to have a 15 minute private interview with Lama Traga Rinpoche was really cool and his Dzogchen teachings were profound all though I missed the majority of them :D Lama Gape comes next weekend hopefully will have an interview with him as well.
 
I've always been under the impression pretty much all the philosophical claims of Buddhism can be subjectively observed in action, and learning to see them in action is what gets your mind working in the right way. Since this is a path of inner transformation, rather than action upon the outer world, what need is there for objectively measured evidence of any claim made?

I personally see rebirth as quite likely, logically, but utterly unprovable to those of us in our present human form.
 
Look, psychedelics and meditation serve the same basic function, they both show you "the door" and in both cases just getting to the door isn't good enough. You have to make your way through the door and explore what's beyond it, take from it and apply it all on your own.

I've heard people numerous times say meditation gets them to the same place a hallucinogen takes me and I have a really hard time not being skeptical. Now if this was some monk who had been practicing meditation for years upon years I might be more inclined to believe it. However, when we're talking about the average American youth who thinks they can just read a wikipedia page on the basic practices of Buddhism go ZOMFG SO ENLIGHTENED and be all knowing in the ways of meditation and the middle path I get really skeptical. It seems to me that within the psychedelic community a lot of people "adopt" eastern beliefs and just become elitists with holier-than-thou-attitudes rivaling that of the Pope. I personally just don't see why anyone needs to attach themselves to a specific ideology anymore.
 
ResinTeeth said:
Look, psychedelics and meditation serve the same basic function, they both show you "the door" and in both cases just getting to the door isn't good enough. You have to make your way through the door and explore what's beyond it, take from it and apply it all on your own.

I've heard people numerous times say meditation gets them to the same place a hallucinogen takes me and I have a really hard time not being skeptical. Now if this was some monk who had been practicing meditation for years upon years I might be more inclined to believe it. However, when we're talking about the average American youth who thinks they can just read a wikipedia page on the basic practices of Buddhism go ZOMFG SO ENLIGHTENED and be all knowing in the ways of meditation and the middle path I get really skeptical. It seems to me that within the psychedelic community a lot of people "adopt" eastern beliefs and just become elitists with holier-than-thou-attitudes rivaling that of the Pope. I personally just don't see why anyone needs to attach themselves to a specific ideology anymore.
Click to expand...

Who said ZOMFG im enlightened? Are you saying people in this thread read only 1 wiki page on Buddhism? Psychedelics cause projections, meditation stills those projections.
 
stonerfromohio said:
Who said ZOMFG im enlightened? Are you saying people in this thread read only 1 wiki page on Buddhism? Psychedelics cause projections, meditation stills those projections.
Click to expand...

I did not address you or the other people who had commented in this thread specifically, I'm talking about a broad range of people within the psychedelic community and I speak figuratively when I say "read one wiki page on Buddhism". Of course you didn't read just one page, I'm sure you've read numerous pages regarding Buddhism and I'll bet you've even sat in your room with the lights off and your eyes closed a couple of times and tried to meditate. All I'm saying is that it often turns out to be that the people who end up on bluelight or anywhere else talking about Buddhism don't have anywhere near a firm grasp on what they are talking about (save for spewing out what they've read verbatim) and it just becomes mind-numbing and repetitive to see so many people ranting about how Buddhism is this or that. There are plenty of "observable truths" in other "religions" Buddhism is no exception. The whole "reincarnation has been proven" thing also just sounds about as believable as any other pseudoscientific evidence. Sorry to be a dick, it just seems to me that Buddhism is extremely and unnecessarily romanticized by a lot of people.

Also, nobody said ZOMFG ENLIGHTENED; please stop reading everything so literally.
 
You seemed to me to be speaking literally that is where the interpretation came from, I meditate every day and I have been doing so for over a year, I attend a Tibetan temple of the Kagyu lineage and have received Padmasambhava empowerment and Dzogchen teachings. If you fully grasp the four noble truths it profoundly changes your views on life and transforms you they are very simple but profound truths. They are key insights into the nature of reality the nature of suffering inherent in this realm of existence and the way out. I believe that the insights Buddhism shares cuts right to the point and shows exactly how to eliminate suffering I believe it is different in that regard compared to other religions. Buddhism is a profound philosophy that can lead to enlightenment very quickly if practiced diligently and correctly, it leads to seeing life for the dream it really is.
 
Though grief in the Ocean of Samsara
Is preached, and its renunciation is urged,
Few people are really convinced
And renounce it with determination.
Though knowing that life will ever turn to death,
Few feel uneasy, or think that it will end.
Though their life is blessed with good prospects,
Few can practice abstention for a day.
Though the Bliss of Liberation is expounded
And Samsara's pains are stressed,
Few can really enter the Dharma Gate.
Though the profound Pith-Instructions
Of the Whispered Lineage are given without stint, few
Without fail can practice them.
Though the teaching of Mahamudra is expounded
And the Pointing-out demonstration is exercised,
Few can really understand the Essence of Mind.
To the hermit's life and the Guru's wish
One can always aspire, but few
Can put them into practice.
The perfect, skillful path of Naropa
May be shown, without concealment,
But those who can really follow it
Are very few. My dear lad,
You should follow in my footsteps
If in this life you want to do
Something that is worthwhile.

-- Jetsun Milarepa

When I realize everything’s equality
I forget all about my close friends and my relatives
It’s OK to forget the objects of your attachment

When I realize wisdom beyond thought
I forget everything included in perceiver and perceived
It’s OK to forget these causes of happiness and pain

Beyond memory, beyond feelings
I forget all about experiences, the good ones and the bad
It’s OK to forget them, they just go up and down

When I know the three kayas are present naturally
I forget all about the deity’s generation stage practice
It’s OK to forget the Dharma made of concepts

When I realize the result’s inside of me
I forget all about the results you have to strive and strain to get
It’s OK to forget the Dharma of the relative truth

Meditating on the key instructions
I forget all other explanations and their conventional terms
It’s OK to forget the Dharma that makes you arrogant

When I realize appearances are my texts
I forget all about those big books with their letters in black
It’s OK to forget the Dharma that’s just a heavy load



-- Jetsun Milarepa, translated under the guidance of Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso Rinpoche,
by Ari Goldfield, July 13, 2002, Dechen Chöling, France.
 
I've gazed at and grasped the 4 noble truths. I see the truth in them, but I'm by no means a buddhist or would call myself one. I give you respect though for being knowledgeable on what you speak. Take it easy and enjoy infinity.
 
ResinTeeth said:
I've gazed at and grasped the 4 noble truths. I see the truth in them, but I'm by no means a buddhist or would call myself one. I give you respect though for being knowledgeable on what you speak. Take it easy and enjoy infinity.
Click to expand...

As long as the truth of the condition is grasped and your on the path to eliminating the suffering all is well :D and as far as Buddhist or non-Buddhist there is no self to be either =D also an interesting side note in Tibet there is no word that translates to Buddhism.
 
^Well of course not, it's just simply the way, there doesn't need to be a label for it, nor can you think of a sufficient name for it if you didn't already know of this "Buddhism" doctrine. The people who live that truth every day don't need to be told that.
I am curious how long have you been meditating stonerfromohio? Have you reached realizations in your early stages of meditation only to be inevitably disappointed later? Do you struggle with the concept of "no expectations" or "no gaining idea" by dualistically calculating your meditation's "progress"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top