Thoughts on Buddhism

[tackattack]

---

The more I read and hear Alan Watts speak the more I fall in love with the man. WATT a great intellect! I read an essay called "Alchemy' that addressed his experimentation with LSD in the 60's. I have some experience with psychadelics and with entering the mind into transcendenatal mysticism. the drug actually strips away layers of conditioning and bio-defenses that allow for more "real" vision. I was wondering if anybody tried DMT? I haven't but I hope to someday.

Human consciousness is a mysterious thing. Even if "god" exists or not, the human mind and body combination is a miracle I don't care what all the naysayers and cynical atheists say. I don't think many of them have a very good imagination. They think too literally. I am sure they are good people, but they may restrict themselves to logic and computation too much, which is a relatively new social condition. Buddhism is counter-cultural just like John Lennon and Yoko Ono was. They said "Screw the government, Bring down the establishment!" WHY? because it is all an illusion.

---

And more than 9 makes you legally insane I believe, which would explain a lot....

[Carnavon]

I trust in Jesus Christ and his work on the cross – as an atonement for sin.

If that's true, then why appeal to the words of Paul or others?

Why not go with things that were attributed direct to Jesus, or to the authors of the Gospels who claim to be quoting him directly all the time?

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

Here John is making a pretty straight-forward claim. If you are to believe that you can trust John to speak for God and that Jesus was "The Word Made Flesh", then why should you doubt the words of John or go off using the words of Paul or others to contradict these words?

The issue was predestination and the comments are my personal take on what do I do with this – and my response is that I trust only in Jesus (and not in the concept of predestination), although that (predestination) is my view and experience of how I came to Christ. I did not deal with the basis on which we are justified – belief in the Jesus Christ as you correctly pointed out.

Maybe you can explain why you see John 3:18 as contradictory?

Carnavon Wrote: Jesus' claims are either that of an outright liar, a lunatic or he was speaking the truth (I think it was CS Lewis that said that). Historical facts contradict that he was either of the first two mentioned.
The trustworthiness of the Bible (as far as can be verified) add to my confidence

Yes, you're right it was CS Lewis who said that, but CS Lewis assumes that the New Testament represents the word of Jesus verbatim. There's no reason to assume that unless you have already accepted that these rumors represent the undeniable "word of God". And if you have already done that then there's nothing more to consider.

In fact, if you take CS Lewis' position that you need to 'justify' every word of the Bible verbatim, then you're stuck with having no choice to believe that it's all the sacred word of God. Because in these tales they claim that God himself spoke to the people from a cloud stating that Jesus is his son and that we should hear him.

Matt.17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Mark.9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Luke.9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.


If you believe that, then it's a done deal. There's nothing more to question.

On the other hand if you believe, like me, that these rumors are most likely fibs made up in an attempt to give these absurd rumors clout, then you should simultaneously recognize that this is indeed a huge red flag that clearly demonstrates that nothing these rumors claim should be taken seriously or trusted to be genuine.

As far as CS Lewis in concerned, you will agree that when you use the argument on one point, (which you assume as your own view), the issue is not CS Lewis but the argument itself. So the point was actually Jesus as either liar, lunatic or He was speaking the truth.

True, you do not accept what is reported and make it off as rumours/fables/fibs etc. The problem is that you have no proof of your claims. At most, questions are raised. It is also true that one always attach more value to the stories of those that have proven themselves to be reliable than those whose claims almost always involve some form of lie. (Which is actually a hallmark of Satan- "You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it".

Why would I believe something that is outside of normal human experience? Because I can trust the Bible, based on facts that I am able to verify. If one is able to verify anything that is possible of verification and you have found no falsehood or deceit, one can trust the source.

I make no secret about the fact that I completely dismiss the entire Hebrew rumors as nothing more than extremely biased superstitions.

In fact, just look around you today. Look at how many people argue and try to support these stupid rumors when in fact, they weren't there and could have absolutely no knowledge of whether any of this stuff ever took place.

Apparently it's human nature to support fibs and rumors that they like.

Why should we believe that the authors of these ancient fables were any different?

In fact, most scholars recognize that Matthew and Luke were both just retelling Mark's fables.

So basically these gospels are just one rumor being retold by different authors. None of them saw the events that they are reporting. It's all just hearsay rumors being passed along from one idiot to another.

If these were rumours they would not be reflected in secular history? And at the very least be strongly denied by the "opposition" and factual evidence provided to disprove the claims (for one the resurrection of Jesus). Despite that, the best they could do is to spread rumours that the body was "stolen" , despite the most stringent security.

The confidence I have in the Bible is time and again validated. A little while back James Cameron claimed to have found Jesus’ grave, supposedly proving that the resurrection is a “fable” as you would call it. Now the claim by Cameron has been ridiculed by many and has “disappeared into thin air”

These so called fables have never been proven wrong, to the contrary, new evidence continuously support the Bible instead of proving it wrong – even in cases where the Bible record was previously reported as being incorrect.

You call the Bible records “fables” without evidence whereas I am able to supply evidence of secular history and archaeology supporting Biblical records.

As far as “copying”, it would seem that Luke (physician) lays claim to having accurately researched the information
Luk 1:1 Since many took in hand to draw up an account concerning the matters having been borne out among us,
Luk 1:2 as those from the beginning delivered to us, becoming eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word,
Luk 1:3 it seemed good also to me, having traced out all things accurately from the first, to write in order to you, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 that you may know the certainty concerning the words which you were taught.

Luke was apparently a historian of quality and we can thus accept his record as fairly accurate (if not altogether) – wherever he obtained information from. To repeat a story is no indication that it is false, to the contrary it lends credibility to the source when it is claimed that it was properly researched. Thus Luke actually “underwrites” the sources he may have used.

There are sufficient extra biblical evidence that supports the events reported in the Bible (Refer for instance to the Ebla tablets etc)

It never fails to amuse me to hear of some or other claim of proof “contradicting the Bible” which is later found to be based on false information – whether intentional or not.

I am sorry that I have seemed to miss some of your previous and very good questions. If there is anything in particular you would like to address, I will be too happy to respond. I appreciate the value of your questions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Human consciousness is a mysterious thing. Even if "god" exists or not, the human mind and body combination is a miracle I don't care what all the naysayers and cynical atheists say. I don't think many of them have a very good imagination. They think too literally. I am sure they are good people, but they may restrict themselves to logic and computation too much, which is a relatively new social condition. Buddhism is counter-cultural just like John Lennon and Yoko Ono was. They said "Screw the government, Bring down the establishment!" WHY? because it is all an illusion.

Amazing does not equal miraculous. There isn't any naysaying or cynicism in that statement. My imagination is doing fine, thank you.

Buddhism is counter-cultural only if you come from an area that is not now or has not in the past been dominated by Buddhism, which was very much part of the state (in a variety of states) for a very, very long time. The buddhist being the fucking King,ordained by the god-damned cosmos no less! Buddhists definitely don't peddle "screw the government". For the majority of the history of Buddhism neither they (nor the states in question) could imagine a government that did not contain Buddhism. Now that they find themselves on the outs they're selling counter-culture to the new crop are they?

I'm getting the feeling that you, like any religious nutter, know a lot about your faith's myths, but not much about your faith's reality.

[Abracadabra]

It never fails to amuse me to hear of some or other claim of proof “contradicting the Bible” which is later found to be based on false information – whether intentional or not.

I am sorry that I have seemed to miss some of your previous and very good questions. If there is anything in particular you would like to address, I will be too happy to respond. I appreciate the value of your questions.

What you say is clearly wrong. Contradictions in the Bible are contained directly in the text. There is no need to go looking elsewhere to reveal them. And once they are found there is no way to correct them because the stories cannot now be re-written. They are what they are.

I'm not going to re-type this every time so I've pasted a previous post of mine below:

In short, the fables claim that Jesus is the sole judge of men. But clearly Jesus himself was unaware of this at the time of his crucifixion. That's a blatant contradiction that cannot be removed from these broken scriptures. They will remain forever broken.

Moreover, John makes claims about Jesus that clearly aren't true base upon the very behavior of Jesus at Calvary. So once again, the scriptures are permanently broken and cannot be repaired short of re-writing the fables.

Here's a detailed account of precisely how we can know with absolute certainty that these fables are indeed broken and contradict their own stories. They cannot be the infallible word of any God, because they are clearly broken and contradict their own claims.

~~~~~

The Scriptures Have Been Broken - It's a Done Deal:

John writes in this Holy Book:

John 3:18 He that believeth on him (Jesus) is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I will demonstrate clearly that John 3:18 an outright contradiction.

First assume that John 5:22 is true (in these fables)

John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son

The Father Judgeth no man and all judgment has been committed to the Son (that would be Jesus in these fables)

At Calvary Roman soldiers who did not believe in "Jesus" as the only begotten Son of God, were forgiven by Jesus himself. They neither recognized Jesus as being divine, nor did they ask Jesus for forgiveness. On the contrary, they openly mocked him, beat him, and nailed him to a pole.

Yet according to Luke Jesus said the following:

Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

We have TWO blatant contradictions here.

The first being that Jesus was asking the Father to forgive these men. That contradicts John 5:22 and shows that Jesus himself was not aware that he was to be the sole judge of men.

So that's the first blatant contradiction. The scriptures have been broken right there.

The second blatant contradiction is that Jesus is forgiving these men based on a principle of his observation or belief that these men are not understanding what they are doing wrong. (i.e. They know not what they do).

Therefore, Jesus himself at this point in these fables is contradicting John 3:18 that anyone who does not believe in the name of the son of God is condemned already. Clearly Jesus is prepared to forgive these men even though they do not recognize the divinity of Jesus, nor are they asking to be forgiven.

So the scriptures are broken twice in this single event.

It's an easily twice-broken fable just in this one instance.

Of course I've recognized that these fables have been broken since at least the 3rd Chapter of Genesis, but that's a whole other story.

These New Testament Gospels are clearly broken. And the Christian demand that John 3:18 must be held up as the "Voice of Jesus" is false. In fact, John 3:18 isn't even John quoting Jesus, it's just John narrating his own personal opinions.

Clearly these scriptures are as broken as they can be and there is no resurrecting them.

So it's a done deal. The Christian Holy Scriptures have officially been broken. And the Christian claims that Jesus won't forgive anyone unless they recognize that he is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings is hogwash that cannot be supported by these broken fables.

Thank you for reading. And have great day!

[Bgood]

Buddha says to me that an attiitude of gratitude is always a positive projection. Be thankful for what you have and you will not worry so much and you will diffuse anxiety. I have so many good things in my life which I appreciate.

[Angrboda]

It never fails to amuse me to hear of some or other claim of proof “contradicting the Bible” which is later found to be based on false information – whether intentional or not.

I am sorry that I have seemed to miss some of your previous and very good questions. If there is anything in particular you would like to address, I will be too happy to respond. I appreciate the value of your questions.

What you say is clearly wrong. Contradictions in the Bible are contained directly in the text. There is no need to go looking elsewhere to reveal them. And once they are found there is no way to correct them because the stories cannot now be re-written. They are what they are.

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

— Isaac Asimov

[The Grand Nudger]

The Bodhisattva also says that he really misses his palace, and serfs. I make it a habit to ignore Buddha, his minions, and their collective human holdings. But whatever works right?

[Angrboda]

The more I read and hear Alan Watts speak the more I fall in love with the man. WATT a great intellect! I read an essay called "Alchemy' that addressed his experimentation with LSD in the 60's. I have some experience with psychadelics and with entering the mind into transcendenatal mysticism. the drug actually strips away layers of conditioning and bio-defenses that allow for more "real" vision. I was wondering if anybody tried DMT? I haven't but I hope to someday.

Human consciousness is a mysterious thing. Even if "god" exists or not, the human mind and body combination is a miracle I don't care what all the naysayers and cynical atheists say. I don't think many of them have a very good imagination. They think too literally. I am sure they are good people, but they may restrict themselves to logic and computation too much, which is a relatively new social condition. Buddhism is counter-cultural just like John Lennon and Yoko Ono was. They said "Screw the government, Bring down the establishment!" WHY? because it is all an illusion.

You might be interested in the following documentary, available on Netflix, DMT: The Spirit Molecule.

A recent discussion of psychedelics on another forum prompted one observer to suggest that "they're right on the edge of releasing something inside us that wants to get out." Which prompted me to reply that, "If the documentary on the psychedelic DMT I just watched is any indication, that something waiting to get out is a bunch of unsubstantiated metaphysical twaddle, baseless speculation, and just general bad thinking."

The real poverty of imagination here is in those who think that their inability to conceive of naturalistic explanations for consciousness tells us anything useful about the problem itself. That's just an argument from ignorance. That's mistaking your confusion for its profundity.

On the whole, I don't find consciousness particularly mysterious as I see solutions where other people see baffling mysteries. There is only one aspect of consciousness which still gives me some pause. However, having pushed through the fogs where others have stalled in dumbfounded wonder, I have every reason to expect that aspect to be naturalistically soluble. There's a reason why people "restrict themselves to logic and computation," because several centuries of productive science as a result of doing so has yielded more useful truths than several millennia of navel gazing.

[Abracadabra]

There's a reason why people "restrict themselves to logic and computation," because several centuries of productive science as a result of doing so has yielded more useful truths than several millennia of navel gazing.

That's certainly true, and it would require a fool to not recognize that truth.

However, at the very same time there are equally logical reasons for recognizing the limitations and domain of the sciences.

If you stand back and look at science you can clearly see what it does. Science looks at the observable universe and describes how it behaves in terms of quantitative or mathematical relationships.

Period. That's all that science does.

Science does not explain, or even attempt to explain, why there exists a universe that obeys quantitative relationships in the first place. That is just assumed to be the case because that's what we observe. It doesn't need to be proven or explained, all it needs to be is experienced and that is sufficient proof that it exists.

However, science has now come to a place where it has actually shown us that this method of observation and explanation must necessarily break down at the quantum level. This is precisely the predictions of the most scientific theory to date - Quantum Mechanics. The mathematics of Quantum Mechanics demand via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that we can never go beneath the quantum level. We even have reasons to believe that space, time, and even mathematics as we understand it may very well all break down beneath the quantum level. Yet we have sound reasons for believing that there exists some sort of 'reality' beneath the substrate of what we see as a physical universe.

So science has actually come to the place where it is basically indicating that there is something that goes far beyond science, and possibly even mathematics and logic as we perceive them to be.

So science has led us full-circle, and now it has become reasonable to believe that there may exist aspects of nature that may not adhere to the quantitative mathematics and logic that we so cherish.

We've come full circle.

Is science great at describing spactime, and the behavior of energy and mass within that fabric? Yes, absolutely, it's perfect for that job.

But can that same method of inquiry lead us to anything beyond that?

We now have legitimate reasons to suspect that this may not be the case.

Just look at String Theory.

Most people may not realize this, but even though String Theory is tied to mathematics, that doesn't mean that it is restricted to mathematics as we understand it. Oh the contrary most string theorists now believe that there may be well over ten to five-hundredth power possible string theories.

That a 10 with 500 zeroes after it.

And every one of those solutions may represent an entirely different kind of universe which may be just as legitimate as our, yet the very nature of mathematics (i.e. the quantitative relationships between things) in those universes may seem totally illogical and bizarre to us.

So our very notions of "logic" and "reason" may themselves be highly illogical and unreasonable with respect to the true nature of reality.

And, of course, that will absolutely be true if String Theory turns out to be right.

So how ironic is that?

Science isn't what it used to be back in the days of Isaac Newton.

Science can be perfectly true and correct, yet reality can still be extremely strange and unimaginable in terms of what we consider to be 'logical'.

Contrary to what many people seem to be thinking, science does not demand that reality must be 'reasonable'.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it not interesting to you that the domain and limitations of science have been steadily harped upon by a few centuries of magical thinkers such as yourself, who have, since the very beginning, been forced to retreat from their claims or become charlatans as science shows itself to be able to cross those boundaries the wishful thinkers thought impassable, to establish order and explanations in areas that were "not the domain of science".