The validity of existence: spiritual beings, scientific hypothesis and faith

Jan 20, 2009 10:26

What is the difference, exactly, between a scientific hypothesis and faith ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 6

ocha_no_hanashi January 20 2009, 07:12:19 UTC
To posit that reality is nothing more than electrical impulses is okay, as Warner does in his commentary on Dogen's Shobogenzo, but, it is highly likely that there is more to it than that.From the perspective of someone suffering, that idea -- that we're just electrical impulses that die out forever at death -- is rather comforting. Oblivion as it were is appealing. It means no more suffering. It is like a super permanent sleep. Awareness ceases to exist at all. Again, it is a comforting notion to some. One desire is the desire for non-existence or unbecoming. To desire for life is one, but to desire for unbecoming, not necessarily death, is again a jump away from reality ( ... )

Reply

fishmonkeytrip January 20 2009, 08:48:26 UTC
"Many like to just say, "Naw, there's nothing. You rot in the ground and that's it." That's a superstition in my mind."

I was thinking so, I can exist as a 'spiritual being' for my pet rabbit: performing acts of kindness etc, and that's it for the scope of spiritual beings. It just ends there, with me, and other pet owners. Extend this metaphor to whom or whatever. That doesnt make sense. If I can exist, but not fully known or understood to my pet rabbit then spiritual beings are highly likely to exist. How can I prove this? Because I am not omniscent. If I were, I could say for sure either way. There is much I dont know therefore the extension of me as spiritual being to spiritual beings looking after me is highly likely, if not, a surety.

Reply

ocha_no_hanashi January 22 2009, 07:00:27 UTC
When I was in grade 2 we did this special theme for a few weeks about Australia. Everything was to do with Australia for a few weeks. I'm not kidding. I can remember everything. We went to see some visiting Koalas at the Zoo. Some Australian teacher came to talk to us and show us photos. We were taught some songs and I can still sing waltzing matilda.

This song:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=58vujCL2dJI

Crazy how I can remember this after so long. :)

Reply

fishmonkeytrip January 22 2009, 13:40:12 UTC
You're a dag :) Oi, what's a canuck?

Reply


arkasis January 20 2009, 14:02:47 UTC
In my opinion, Warner only substitutes one string of words for another in his "explanation" of Dogen. Zen words inspire practice, not more speculation.

Reply

fishmonkeytrip January 21 2009, 00:48:13 UTC
That's exactly why Im reading Dogen (via Nishijima) - not becoz I dont like Warner, he's fine, neither here nor there, but to practice or sit more. I need to sit more, and so far Warner has really helped me with that - so far that I am grateful. Maybe because I swing btwn extremes or get easily bored, distracted I tend to need extremes established to consciously swing btwn to remain any good at either of them. I dont know if youve seen 'Eels' by The Mighty Boosh but in that lil ditty there's a line: "Elements of the future mixed with elements of the past to make something not quite as good as either." My practice is something like that :) So, my dilemma now is reading Nishijima's Dogen, while getting serious about NKT teachings and determining for myself what my position is on the whole Shugden dharma protector issue. I found Warner's book made me simply sit and do nothing but observe which Ive not done before. I have elaborate preliminary visualisations to get through and prayers, followed by the same and putting up and taking ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up