Thoughts on Buddhism

[Abracadabra]

Dear Reverend Jeremiah,

I'll be the first to confess that many of these concepts of "oneness" are hard to understand. I certainly don't have the answers, I wish I did. But I do have thoughts on these things that I'd like to share if only as food for thought for others.

You say:

Sure, we all come from the same source, the big bang, and that we are biologically RELATED to all life on this planet, molecularly related to this planet, and atomically related to the universe, and all of that can be tested and predictions performed in the theory...which means it is good science...

I'm certainly on the same page with you there. There is no question about it. We are this universe. Not merely a "product of it", but we are it. There is nothing that we can lay claim to that is not in-essence the stuff of the universe. We are this universe. And like you say, this is scientifically well-established fact.

If we are conscious, then the universe has become conscious if only via our form. We are the consciousness of the universe. We don't "own" our consciousness as something that doesn't belong to the universe. We are the universe perceiving itself.

This is especially true from the vantage point of secular atheism. In fact, the only way to get around it at all, would be to imagine that our 'consciousness' belongs to something other than this universe. (i.e. it belongs to some magical 'soul' that has somehow been implanted into the physical body that has evolved from the universe.

So this Buddhist notion that "all-is-one", is not truly different from secular atheism at all. They both concede that his is indeed the situation. So secular atheism and Buddhism are in agreement on this point. It would only be religions like Chrisitanity, etc, that would argue that we are not merely our bodies, that we are a 'soul' that has been attached to the body by some supernatural God.

So Buddhism and Secular Atheism are starting off on the same launching pads. It's only later than their trajectories differ.

..but that is a far cry from "being one" with the universe, as if your thoughts are the universes thoughts and vice versa. If that were true then every single animal and human would be thinking the same as you. This can be tested and proven to not be an accurate assumption.

Well your going off the deep end here without justification. What do you mean by "the universe's thoughts"?

Your thoughts ARE the universes thoughts. The universe itself has no "thoughts" of its own as a separate egotistical entity. The universe is thinking through you, and through all other sentient beings simultaneously.

So your assumption that all the physical brains of the universe should be having the same thoughts is where the error lies. I personally understand why you are thinking this way. You're thinking that if the universe is ultimately the "being that has become sentient through us" then the universe should be perceiving the thoughts of all beings that exist in the universe simultaneously.

Well, if that were the case the poor universe would surely be extremely confused. It would be experiencing a seeming infinite (or at least unimaginably large quantity) of viewpoints simultaneously. The poor universe as a multi-headed single-being would be overwhelmed with total confusion. That wouldn't even work in a practical sense.

So the perceptions of all these individual brains must be isolated as a single vantage point. Some mechanism must be in place for this to be the case. And this is where things become extremely difficult to explain.

The most popular "explanation" given by secular atheists is that conscious awareness and perception is achieved by an "emergent property" of the brain. This property simply emerges into being from the sheer complexity of the wiring of the brain, and that is what is perceiving things. That emergent property is what "experiences" reality.

I personally don't buy into this as an "explanation". I'm not convinced that an "emergent" property should be able to "experience" anything. Why should an "emergent" property be able to have an "experience"?

What is an "emergent property" anyway, other than an abstract human thought to begin with?

So I'm supposed to believe that my true essence is that I'm just a fleeting emergent property of a biological computer and is having an experience?

Moreover, how ironic is all of this. Secular atheist laugh at me for suggesting that "quantum fields" might be "real". They so, no, quantum fields are just an abstract mathematical TOOL.

Yet they expect me to believe that my truest essence is that I'm an abstract emergent property of a biological computer?

How silly is that?

With all due respect to those who believe that they are an emergent property of a biological computer, I just personally do not find that to be a compelling explanation of consciousness.

So what do the Buddhist have to say about it? And how does their trajectory differ from secular atheism?

I view feelings of such "oneness" as more of a loss of individuality. A momentary disconnect from "me", or the ego, or whatever you want to call it, and more of the brain confusing input as itself, rather than outside and seperate of itself.

Well, you're striking very close to the heart of Buddhism in your above pondering actually. A recognition of the difference between the ego (the sense of individuality bought about by your secluded vantage point of the universe) and your true nature (the fact that you are indeed this universe perceiving itself) is indeed the key to understanding Buddhism.

The first thing you need to do is realize that you are not your ego. (i.e. your are not a secluded emergent property of a biological computer)

You are something far more vast and free than this. You are the universe experience itself. A hypothetical "emergent property" is nothing more than a human construct of abstraction. How could a human construct of abstraction experience anything? Evidently this universe must be some sort of conscious mind that is having these experiences and you are that. Tat t'vam asi.

That's the stance a Buddhist would take.

So you ask the Buddhist sage, "So master, can you please explain to me how that works specially in scientific detail so I can understand the true nature of this cosmic mind that you claim that I am?"

The Buddhist sage reaches out and touches the tip of your nose and says, "No grasshopper, of course I can't, its a mystery, why do you think we openly acknowledge that Buddhism is Mysticism?"

~~~~~

So let's consider which is more "rational"?

That we are merely an abstract idea of an emergent property of a biological computer?

Or that the underlying fabric of the universe (i.e. the ocean of mystical quantum fields) is some sort of mind that is dreaming up this whole thing and experiences it from every possible vantage point.

I'm all for "Row row row your boat, life is but a dream".

It just makes more sense to me than the idea that I'm an abstract emergent property of a biological computer. Why should that idea have a leg up on the idea that the universe is some sort of mystical quantum mind?

They are both equally outlandish.

But to me, the idea of an infinite ocean of unbounded potentiality of consciousness is simply more attractive.

So I'm happy to conclude that I am that, "Tat t'vam asi".

After all, we even have scientific evidence that an ocean of quantum fields exists in some form of reality. We don't have any scientific evidence at all that some abstract notion of an 'emergent property' of a biological computer exists.

So Buddhism actually has more scientific support than secular atheism anyway, IMHO.