Reincarnation and further thoughts on reincarnation
Created | Updated Feb 20, 2010
This is posting #22926 from the Richard Dawkins thread.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F19585?thread=4005961&post=92085747#p92085747
It is my response to Flying Ants comment that no one was willing
to share what they thought Buddhism was all about.
>> And clearly jwf has some idea of what he thinks Budhism is. <<
Buddhism is a state of awareness in which one remains open to the
natural whirled (including the o'er-towering babel of the hairless apes).
First, one comes to terms with the fact that there are both observable
and intuitive 'processes' and 'mechanisms' at work in the Universe.
Once one realises that these operate on a microscopic and macroscopic
scale beyond our capacity to imagine let alone comprehend, one must
conclude that individual consciousness is both the most blessed and most
damned state. (This conflict is patterned into every being at the genetic level
of instinct for nutrition and growth - hunger versus satiety.)
Once aware of our place in the Cosmos, one accepts as calmly as possible the
three equal possibilities of personal oblivion, re-incarnation or eternal whatever.
Oblivion makes it almost as hard to keep-on-keeping-on as the notion of eternal
anything is terrifying to a rational mind. Sadly, a survival instinct is also built into
every being at a genetic level.
So, by reductive reasoning, re-incarnation is the only viable (bigeyes) choice.
Even if it means an ongoing madhouse of being. Being a horse or a whore or
a hen or a hun or a honeybee. And knowing that each kind of 'life' has its own
rewards and punishments with inevitable pains and death.
Apparently, to escape this cycle (though why one would ever want to temporarily
eludes me) one has to reach a state of jaded experience where it just doesn't matter
much anymore, where nothing is a surprise or a shock or more pain or pleasure than
a body can bear. Then one fades away into non-existence like full-term radiation.
This wisdom is known to certain alcoholics, junkies, zen buddhists and other assorted
happy souls who have at least achieved a cosmic sense of humour and are prepared
to be open to anything the Cosmos can hurl, thunderbolt-wise.
Like Russian Rule-etiquette.
<zen>
~jwf~
Later in another thread on Buddhism at Post 205:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F19585?thread=7293964&post=92668607#p92668607
I said (again in response to Effers):
>> Have you ever had the 'senses' of an extinct organism? <<
Interesting question.
First let me suggest that 'extinct' can only be applied to species or 'types' of species
of which we have fossil evidence but find no living examples We say they have
'died out' but we can't always know whether they had mutant offspring or came
to a complete dead end. The daisy chain of evolution or the tree of life imagery
seems to focus too much on similar skeletal structures and body types.
I tend not to think of linear or descending generations of body types but rather the
passing on of 'skillsets' or 'capabilities' or 'instinctive behaviors'. (Although it is
likely that new skills are often the result of physical variation/mutation - the so-called
'progress' of evolution.)
So let's take one of the most basic 'skills', the natural attraction to light of
photosynthetic organisms. It was long thought that these 'light eating' beings
were the first living things, but it is lately being suggested that they were perhaps
a mutation from 'heat sensitive' beings that converted heat energy emanating
from undersea volcanic vents deep in the dark lightless oceans where 'the first
life' began.
Once able to 'digest' the raw energy of light, instead of heat, critters
evolved and moved up toward the surface and beyond. Many (perhaps billions)
of various photosensitive species evolved and have since become 'extinct'. And yet
most of today's living species, including ourselves, still have a tendency to be
attracted to light.
While the first photosensitive critters are long gone, the propensity to seek
light lives on in both 'primitive' and 'advanced' life forms. I'd say that was
a primary meme, and just one of many which we experience on many levels of
consciousness that require only sentience without any consciously directed
perception or human intelligence.
When I am enjoying a warm sunny day it is possible (to my way of thinking)
that parts of the 90% of my brain I'm 'not using' somehow share the feeling of
such experiences with millions of long dead, even extinct critters, who have
'memories' of similar occasions of warmth and light as it impacts my neurochemistry
on a molecular level.
When I stand in a meadow and feel the breeze and smell the flowers and grasses,
who can say that that 'moment' is not shared with some communal consciousness
buried deep in my genes.
One cannot be fully aware, fully focused or fully conscious for long (if in fact we can
ever be totally aware). And we do know that we have a 'subconscious' mind, an
'autonomic' nervous system, instincts, intuitions, feelings that are far from understood.
So until some of these atheist scientists figger out how memes work (at some neurochemical
level) I am content to believe that all 'sensitive' creatures contain within them a natural,
unconscious capacity to share common memetic experiences with the ancestral 'cells'
and 'neurological patterns' that make up our 'hearts' and 'minds'.
zen
~jwf~
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F19585?thread=4005961&post=92085747#p92085747
It is my response to Flying Ants comment that no one was willing
to share what they thought Buddhism was all about.
>> And clearly jwf has some idea of what he thinks Budhism is. <<
Buddhism is a state of awareness in which one remains open to the
natural whirled (including the o'er-towering babel of the hairless apes).
First, one comes to terms with the fact that there are both observable
and intuitive 'processes' and 'mechanisms' at work in the Universe.
Once one realises that these operate on a microscopic and macroscopic
scale beyond our capacity to imagine let alone comprehend, one must
conclude that individual consciousness is both the most blessed and most
damned state. (This conflict is patterned into every being at the genetic level
of instinct for nutrition and growth - hunger versus satiety.)
Once aware of our place in the Cosmos, one accepts as calmly as possible the
three equal possibilities of personal oblivion, re-incarnation or eternal whatever.
Oblivion makes it almost as hard to keep-on-keeping-on as the notion of eternal
anything is terrifying to a rational mind. Sadly, a survival instinct is also built into
every being at a genetic level.
So, by reductive reasoning, re-incarnation is the only viable (bigeyes) choice.
Even if it means an ongoing madhouse of being. Being a horse or a whore or
a hen or a hun or a honeybee. And knowing that each kind of 'life' has its own
rewards and punishments with inevitable pains and death.
Apparently, to escape this cycle (though why one would ever want to temporarily
eludes me) one has to reach a state of jaded experience where it just doesn't matter
much anymore, where nothing is a surprise or a shock or more pain or pleasure than
a body can bear. Then one fades away into non-existence like full-term radiation.
This wisdom is known to certain alcoholics, junkies, zen buddhists and other assorted
happy souls who have at least achieved a cosmic sense of humour and are prepared
to be open to anything the Cosmos can hurl, thunderbolt-wise.
Like Russian Rule-etiquette.
<zen>
~jwf~
Later in another thread on Buddhism at Post 205:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F19585?thread=7293964&post=92668607#p92668607
I said (again in response to Effers):
>> Have you ever had the 'senses' of an extinct organism? <<
Interesting question.
First let me suggest that 'extinct' can only be applied to species or 'types' of species
of which we have fossil evidence but find no living examples We say they have
'died out' but we can't always know whether they had mutant offspring or came
to a complete dead end. The daisy chain of evolution or the tree of life imagery
seems to focus too much on similar skeletal structures and body types.
I tend not to think of linear or descending generations of body types but rather the
passing on of 'skillsets' or 'capabilities' or 'instinctive behaviors'. (Although it is
likely that new skills are often the result of physical variation/mutation - the so-called
'progress' of evolution.)
So let's take one of the most basic 'skills', the natural attraction to light of
photosynthetic organisms. It was long thought that these 'light eating' beings
were the first living things, but it is lately being suggested that they were perhaps
a mutation from 'heat sensitive' beings that converted heat energy emanating
from undersea volcanic vents deep in the dark lightless oceans where 'the first
life' began.
Once able to 'digest' the raw energy of light, instead of heat, critters
evolved and moved up toward the surface and beyond. Many (perhaps billions)
of various photosensitive species evolved and have since become 'extinct'. And yet
most of today's living species, including ourselves, still have a tendency to be
attracted to light.
While the first photosensitive critters are long gone, the propensity to seek
light lives on in both 'primitive' and 'advanced' life forms. I'd say that was
a primary meme, and just one of many which we experience on many levels of
consciousness that require only sentience without any consciously directed
perception or human intelligence.
When I am enjoying a warm sunny day it is possible (to my way of thinking)
that parts of the 90% of my brain I'm 'not using' somehow share the feeling of
such experiences with millions of long dead, even extinct critters, who have
'memories' of similar occasions of warmth and light as it impacts my neurochemistry
on a molecular level.
When I stand in a meadow and feel the breeze and smell the flowers and grasses,
who can say that that 'moment' is not shared with some communal consciousness
buried deep in my genes.
One cannot be fully aware, fully focused or fully conscious for long (if in fact we can
ever be totally aware). And we do know that we have a 'subconscious' mind, an
'autonomic' nervous system, instincts, intuitions, feelings that are far from understood.
So until some of these atheist scientists figger out how memes work (at some neurochemical
level) I am content to believe that all 'sensitive' creatures contain within them a natural,
unconscious capacity to share common memetic experiences with the ancestral 'cells'
and 'neurological patterns' that make up our 'hearts' and 'minds'.
zen
~jwf~
