[TCjwwhcY]

But if there are other worlds/realms, someones got to rule them.

Hello theseeking1,

Right, and if panda bears live on the surface of Venus, they must be fireproof.

This is not a strong argument in favor of fireproof panda bears or panda bears in space.

You seem to twist logic to support your preconceived beliefs. You're not the only one, by far. I'm calling you on it because you keep a cool head and don't get defensive when challenged, stay friendly. I appreciate you for that, and I'll try to follow your example.

Others on this forum often ask, "What's so great about logic?" They usually ask about science and logic in the same breath.

Well, there's no short answer to that question. One answer is that logical arguments are more persuasive than illogical arguments. If you're talking with people who already agree with you, logic doesn't matter so much. But if you're talking with a person who doesn't already agree with you, logic is the sharpest tool in your kit.

That's probably why most of Buddha's teachings are logical. That's how he persuaded skeptics. He had followers, but he often addressed non-believers, and persuaded them.

You, and many Buddhists all over the world are in an uncomfortable position. You believe things that cannot be logically justified. There's no simple answer to that problem. This was one of the concerns behind my unpopular, overly-long and pedantic thread about epistemology.

Cheers,


Bopshibobshibop

[Galinastva]

Thank you my friend.
I really think my only answer to this point would be there are those who believe there is something after this existence and some who don't.

In my view our minds are basically an electrical machine. This means there is energy. Energy is not created nor destroyed. It does change forms but still exists.
Now what's to say that our energy doesn't take on another form?
Also, what's to say that there isn't a "force" (for lack of a better term) that somehow guides our energy into it's next form, based on the actions of this form?
Be that Karma, God, a Deity...............Depends on your belief.
Even at the point that there may not be a "force" to do this, where does this energy, which is what supported the brain go after the flesh has worn out?

I'm not asking for answers to these questions, but just pointing out things that I consider important to such a conversation.



With Metta

[jackie Obrian]

Like the Tao in a way?

[snunsebrugs]

Yes, in a way.


With Metta

[bumxumer]

In my view our minds are basically an electrical machine. This means there is energy. Energy is not created nor destroyed. It does change forms but still exists.
Now what's to say that our energy doesn't take on another form?
Also, what's to say that there isn't a "force" (for lack of a better term) that somehow guides our energy into it's next form, based on the actions of this form?
Be that Karma, God, a Deity...............Depends on your belief.
Even at the point that there may not be a "force" to do this, where does this energy, which is what supported the brain go after the flesh has worn out?

I'm not sure if you understand what you're insinuating here.

You cite the first law of thermodynamics and then go on to suggest that energy can take on another form (presumably through "reincarnation") but you do not explain the mechanism for this.

Actually, upon death the body's energy is not necessarily transferred to some other body. Most energy in the human body is stored in the form of chemical bonds, which break down at death in the absence of glucose and oxygen. Due to a lack of ATP, the cell's energy currency, energy is no longer actively produced or consumed, and maintenance of the body and its organs is no longer possible. The breaking of chemical bonds results in the release of energy back into the organic world. Any energy lost by a system must be gained by the surroundings. There is nothing spiritual about this. It is a physical process.

The body's change in internal energy can be represented as follows:

ΔU = q + w

Where ΔU is change in internal energy (of the body), q is equal to the heat added to/removed from the system (the body), and w equals work done on or by the system (the body).

Some energy remains in the body at death, which is why it is possible to burn a corpse, as the deceased form will convert its chemical potential into thermal energy. Energy is emitted as heat as the body decomposes.

Furthermore, the brain's energy is electrochemical in nature. When an individual dies, the energy in neurons, produced with the assistance of ions that help create an electrical potential at the cellular level, diffuses. That energy may be consumed by detritivores or recycled as heat.

There is no place for God in all this.

The Buddha did not teach that energy persists from one body to another, like a transmigrating soul. Even if it did, nothing like a God exists to guide the process.

Samyutta Nikaya III 144

"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of dung on his fingernail], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal individual selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Atheism

[medio]

I'm not sure if you understand what you're insinuating here.

You cite the first law of thermodynamics and then go on to suggest that energy can take on another form (presumably through "reincarnation") but you do not explain the mechanism for this. Yes I do understand what I have said here.
The first law of thermodynamics is a fact scientifically, and since this is true, what's to say that the energy which we consider life/consciousness doesn't carry on into some other form. I did not state reincarnation in my post. I only said what if it takes another form.

The breaking of chemical bonds results in the release of energy back into the organic world. Any energy lost by a system must be gained by the surroundings. There is nothing spiritual about this. It is a physical process. You have also just stated here that the energy does still exist in a different form. It is no longer in the human body, but in another organic state. And you're right there is no spirituality involved there. But it is still the life energy of the deceased person. Correct?

Some energy remains in the body at death, which is why it is possible to burn a corpse, as the deceased form will convert its chemical potential into thermal energy. Energy is emitted as heat as the body decomposes. I'm confused here, it is possible to burn anything, and decomposing is not burning.

Furthermore, the brain's energy is electrochemical in nature. When an individual dies, the energy in neurons, produced with the assistance of ions that help create an electrical potential at the cellular level, diffuses. That energy may be consumed by detritivores or recycled as heat. Once again you are just restating what I said and you said in the first part of this post. The energy is not destroyed just changes form.

There is no place for God in all this. Please look at what I wrote, I did say depends on what you believe. Which also included Karma or a Deity.
If I remember correctly you do not believe in rebirth, I do and so we will not agree here.

The Buddha did not teach that energy persists from one body to another, like a transmigrating soul. Even if it did, nothing like a God exists to guide the process. No he did not, but he spoke of rebirths in lower or higher realms which our Karma causes the mind/consciousness to experience.

With Metta

[Niobaralegra]

Dear theseeking1,

Yes I do understand what I have said here.
The first law of thermodynamics is a fact scientifically, and since this is true, what's to say that the energy which we consider life/consciousness doesn't carry on into some other form. I did not state reincarnation in my post. I only said what if it takes another form.

There is a huge misunderstanding of the definition of energy underpinning this line of thought. This view is neither supported by research in organic chemistry and physics, nor by the Buddha. According to the Buddha's teachings and present-day science, energy is not considered life/consciousness.

You have also just stated here that the energy does still exist in a different form. It is no longer in the human body, but in another organic state. And you're right there is no spirituality involved there. But it is still the life energy of the deceased person. Correct?

Incorrect. It is no longer the life energy of the deceased person. The person no longer owns that energy. It is not theirs. To assume that "it is still the life energy of the deceased person" is to cling to some kind of Atman, which the Buddha refuted.

I'm confused here, it is possible to burn anything, and decomposing is not burning.

It is possible to burn things because they contain potential chemical energy. The body's energy does not all leave it after a person has died. Therefore, the energy has not transmigrated to another being, and is certainly not guided to do so by God, a Deity, or Karma. The body's energy, upon death, can either be converted into thermal energy/heat (by burning, not transferred as a "life force"), or it can be consumed (as calories, food, not transferred as a "life force") by other organisms as they eat the decomposing body. This is what happens to energy, this is how energy is transformed at death.

Once again you are just restating what I said and you said in the first part of this post. The energy is not destroyed just changes form.

You appear to be proposing that energy transmigrates to preserve the individuality of a being through some variety of reincarnation, which is extremely far off from being supported by the first law of thermodynamics or by the Buddha's teachings. Energy is not transformed in the fanciful way suggested in your post.

Please look at what I wrote, I did say depends on what you believe. Which also included Karma or a Deity.

This seems to reflect a misunderstanding of the Buddha's teachings on karma. The word karma literally means action. It is not some higher power that guides the departed or their energy into a new body after death.

If I remember correctly you do not believe in rebirth, I do and so we will not agree here.

No. I neither believe nor disbelieve in literal, post-mortem rebirth. I have no fixed position. The type of rebirth you seem to believe in contradicts the Buddha's teachings, as the Buddha did not propose the transmigration of energy as the continuation of a personality from life to life, and certainly did not suggest that rebirth is facilitated by a higher power.

No he did not, but he spoke of rebirths in lower or higher realms which our Karma causes the mind/consciousness to experience.

With Metta

This has nothing to do with God/Deity/higher power as a "guiding force."



Abhaya

[cigsstorenick]

Abhaya,
Please explain without energy how is there life?
A human requires energy to live, so does every other form of life.
I guess my wording doesn't convey my thought as well as I would like it to. Even the Buddha refered to past existences. I'm really not sure how to word what I want to say in another way.
I used the term god or diety as an example, there are non-Buddhists that visit this web site as well as Buddhists. You seem very hung up on this example. Sorry to have caused this hang up.

If there is no consciousness that does migrate from existence to existence please explain Alayavijnana. Which does state that our Karma may follow us for countless kalpas before it ripens.

I guess the best word to use is mind. And our Karma does have an effect on future existences, if you believe in rebirth. The Buddha did point out that certain actions, Karma, will have an effect on the future existence and the realm in which this existence takes place.

With Metta

[ZenDers]

Buddha talk about rebirth in the Digha Nikaya in the Lohicca sutta , that is the 12 sutta verse 13 page 183 if you have the book

[Preegovesem]

It is probably useful also to look at the Abhidhamma III section 9, which speaks about "rebirth consciousness".

At the moment of death a thought-process that conditions
the future existence occurs. The object of this
thought-process may be (i) a Kamma (action) which one
has performed in the course of one’s life. One recollects the
deed as if being renewed. Strictly speaking, it is a recurring
of the consciousness which one has experienced while performing
the action.Or it may be (ii) any symbol (Kammanimitta)
which was conspicuous during the performance
of the action. It may also be (iii) characteristic symbol of
the place in which one is bound to be reborn (gatinimitta).
91 Taking one of these three as the object, the
rebirth-consciousness takes place in the future existence. Link to a big pdf: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf Page 206.

The term "Rebirth consciouness" is also used in the "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" Edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Page 124.

Hope that helps with the topic.
Metta.

...

[ordercigsnick]

Dear theseeking1,

Abhaya,
Please explain without energy how is there life?

I'm not saying life exists without energy. I am simply refuting the mistaken notion that energy is some kind of life-force persisting from body to body, from life to life. This is not supported by the Buddha's teachings.

A human requires energy to live, so does every other form of life.

This is obvious. I am not denying that. Your mistaken view on the nature of this energy, however, requires reconsideration. I hope by now you see that energy is not implicated in the Buddha's definition of rebirth.

I guess my wording doesn't convey my thought as well as I would like it to. Even the Buddha refered to past existences. I'm really not sure how to word what I want to say in another way.

The Buddha did not refer to past existences by claiming that a life-force like energy transmigrates after death. He referred to past existences as "previous dwellings" having nothing to do with God or energy transmigration.

I used the term god or diety as an example, there are non-Buddhists that visit this web site as well as Buddhists. You seem very hung up on this example. Sorry to have caused this hang up.

Not hung up at all. Just trying to make clear that the Buddha's teachings have no place for God in them. After all, the topic of this thread is "God and Buddhism."

If there is no consciousness that does migrate from existence to existence please explain Alayavijnana. Which does state that our Karma may follow us for countless kalpas before it ripens.

The Alayavijnana is specific only to certain schools of Buddhism, and is not universal to the Buddha's teachings. Also, it has nothing to do with God, the topic of this thread.

I guess the best word to use is mind. And our Karma does have an effect on future existences, if you believe in rebirth. The Buddha did point out that certain actions, Karma, will have an effect on the future existence and the realm in which this existence takes place.

With Metta

This again has nothing to do with God.



Abhaya

[Qauunet]

Buddha talk about rebirth in the Digha Nikaya in the Lohicca sutta , that is the 12 sutta verse 13 page 183 if you have the book

It is probably useful also to look at the Abhidhamma III section 9, which speaks about "rebirth consciousness".


Link to a big pdf: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf Page 206.

The term "Rebirth consciouness" is also used in the "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" Edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Page 124.

Hope that helps with the topic.
Metta.

...

Neither of these posts have anything to do with the OP:

Good Afternoon all!

I'm interested, me, being an atheist, would like to know how many Buddhist actually believe in a higher deity or god. I know there is nothing in the Buddha's teaching to say there is a god, but, correct me if I'm wrong, there is also nothing to say there isn't a god.

What do you think? I'd love to hear your views and beliefs!

Best wishes,

Callum

[FailiaFelay]

Neither of these posts have anything to do with the OP:

Thanks for pointing that out Abhaya.


Please stay on topic in the discussions guys, this thread isn't about rebirth !

[Triiooman]

From post #22 on this has been off topic.

To the OP, you are correct in saying the Buddha didn't teach of a god, in the form of a "supreme being".
But in the 37 realms of existence, there are Divas and Wheel Turning Gods. These are realms of where positive Karma ripens in a positive existence.

As for my beliefs there is no god or higher power deity. But there is something after this existence.


With Metta

[Catieliecutty]

I'm an observant Jew and Buddhist. However I try not to bring up G-d here, it's akin to painting a red target on my chest. If I want to talk about G-d, I'd go to a Jewish forum but I wait till I'm at Shule to talk about G-d and that keeps everyone happy.

[Tazqoaap]

Hi Dhammachick

I dont think it would be a problem to talk about Both Gods and Buddhas in this forum if you have your opinion you can feel free to say it.

The thinker

[TheBestCheapestOEM]

I can relate to Dhammachick (no disrepect to your post The Thinker, my friend)
The problem, as I see it, is holding the view that there is a creator God, like a first principle in the chain of cause and effect is considered a Wrong View in Buddhism. Hence speaking in God's defence could be seen as either Wrong View, not being a Buddhist or worse. People get upset with it.

However, I cannot see any issue with holding the idea/view of a God if you are still willing to explore options to abando that view. That I feel is reasonable in Buddhist practice, after all most of the Buddha's disciplies were Brahmins to my knowledge.

[mobbemeatiedy]

I dont think of a God as a creator or not but as far as my Cultivating goes there are Both Gods and Buddhas out there. it is like a tittle just like Buddha means the awaken one for me God means the same just in other religions. as buddhist there is no creating God for me

The thinker

[seosoftseo]

Namaste The Thinker,

Past experience has taught me otherwise. Everyone is entitled to their opinions though in that you are totally correct :-)

In metta,
Raven

[inofindy]

I can relate to Dhammachick (no disrepect to your post The Thinker, my friend)
The problem, as I see it, is holding the view that there is a creator God, like a first principle in the chain of cause and effect is considered a Wrong View in Buddhism. Hence speaking in God's defence could be seen as either Wrong View, not being a Buddhist or worse. People get upset with it. .

That's exactly what I have found.