No Consciousness or Perception in Buddhist Nirvana?

[rossum]

Are you sure Jesus died and rose from the dead? Or a sleep.

We have evidence from Josephus that a person taken down early from a crucifixion can survive. Jesus was taken down early.

rossum

 

[Jaberwocky]

I’m not sure I understand the logic in this…I would think someone from the “inside” who is going through the same experiences as everybody else is more “credible” than somebody from the “outside” talking about something nobody knows anything about…And I don’t understand what you mean by Jesus coming from the “outside” anyway…so, NO, I don’t think it would be more “reasonable” to believe Jesus than Buddha based on your reasoning above.
I don’t think it is wise to refer to “logic” when it comes to religion…

I don’t remember Jesus saying anywhere in the Bible that there’s no reincarnation, or that we would only have 1 life here on Earth. To me, Jesus’ teachings seem to tie in perfectly well with the law of karma and reincarnation.

Ok, so you have to first understand how Christianity works if you really want to start talking about what Jesus taught. We can certainly do that but that is not the topic of discussion here.

The topic of discussion is whether or not to accept Buddha, Jesus or anyone else as a credible source for things beyond this world.

To accept someone as an authority, that person must prove that they have some communication with the beyond or that they are from the beyond. If one already claims he/she is human, then their authority is unworthy of assent due to the reason I highlighted in the thought experiment. You can discover the outside from within. You can only guess what it is. Even if you were to have a vision of what the outside would look like, you wouldn’t know if that place actually existed or it was your imagination.

For that reason, we must reject Buddha from the candidate list immediately by his own admittance that he is merely human.

Then one proceeds to analyze the other candidates and reject or accept them based on what evidence we have to think they are from outside of this world. Those who accept Jesus are the ones who accept his resurrection as evidence. You might feel that the evidence for the resurrection is not good and therefore rightfully reject Christ.

So the point here is not that I am asking for you to be Christian. Not at all! I am merely asking you to be reasonable. It is unreasonable to trust a mere human being as having any knowledge from beyond that was attained by himself.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Is it possible that the Buddhist teaching of birth and re-birth is related to a spiritual birth and re-birth?

This concept can be found in the Christian “forgiving of sins” where you are as one dead, burdoned with sin, and ask God forgives the sin through the priest, one is “re-born”?

This concept can also be found in Islam where it is said: “O My slaves! You sin morning and evening and I forgive all your sins. So call on Me, I’ll forgive you all your sins.” where the need for a human intermediary for sin is eliminated?

This concept can be found in the Baha’i Faith where it is said: “O SON OF BEING! Bring thyself to account each day ere thou art summoned to a reckoning; for death, unheralded, shall come upon thee and thou shalt be called to give account for thy deeds.” where the individual is expected to undergo constant self-reflection (birth and re-birth) in order to overcome ones own shortcomings and power ahead on the path of constant advancement and spiritual improvement?

Nirvana is taught in ALL religions.

As we aspire and work and strive towards a sin-less existence through our own processes of birth and re-birth (on a spiritual level), our ego (self) is quashed, and its consciousness is dampened and we become eternally conscious of the Selfless One (Father, Absolute, God, Allah)

Attributes of the self (ego) include prejudice, desire, lust, greed, hatred, injustice, irreverence etc etc

Attributes of the selfless (spirit) include universal love, unity, generosity, justice, reverence, contemplation, service etc etc

Through the process of action, reflection, study (knowledge), action, reflection, study etc etc, one can be eternally born and re-born in this physical existence, as spiritual beings, striving towards Nirvana, and the loss of the consciousness of self.

You are asking the wrong question. Before we even wonder if Buddhism has some truth in it or how similar it is to the Christian view, the main question to ask is whether Buddhism is worthy of assent (from the perspective of reasons).

The problem with Buddhism is that its founder claimed to be human. He very clearly did that. As I explained by a thought experiment, it is impossible for a human to say what lies beyond. Even if he were to see it with a vision, he would not know if that corresponds to an actual reality.

This is why Buddha has to struck down from the list of possible candidates (as possibly knowing something from beyond) immediately. This striking down from the list does not assume if Christianity is true or whether Buddhism is compatible with Christianity.

 

[Jaberwocky]

In Buddhism you can find out before you die. I have already seen results, as promised. The Buddha lived for 45 years after attaining nirvana, so he could see the full results in his own life.

Did you read my thought experiment that I presented to a person on this thread?

Buddha if he is merely a human cannot know anything from beyond by himself. Even if Buddha were to suddenly “know” this is what its like outside, he would not be able to say for sure if it is just a sensation he feels or if it actually corresponds to something real.

When you get on a plane to Chicago, you are not 100% sure that it will land at Chicago. The plane might be diverted due to bad weather. Does that mean that you are never ever going to take a plane journey, because you cannot be 100% sure you will arrive?

No. You are mistaking what I am saying as being due to that sort of uncertainty.

I am speaking of this in terms of Buddha as a human not being able to grasp the beyond. It is a logical impossibility.

No it is not. You are still asking questions and not actually doing anything. Instead of posting here, take some time to meditate. “… That person would die Malunkyaputta, before I had ever explained all this to that person.”

That is a great excuse to make by a man who hasn’t given us reason to think him legit.

The problem here is not that Buddha hasn’t give us the complete picture of the beyond. NOT AT ALL.

The problem here is that Buddha has not given us any reason to think he has any knowledge of the beyond. He was just a man who lived and died like the countless other human beings of history. Only thing we can say is that he was a great shrink like S Freud. But that’s not saying much.

 

[Jaberwocky]

We have evidence from Josephus that a person taken down early from a crucifixion can survive. Jesus was taken down early.

Jesus was pierced in his side. Roman’s didn’t just take down people early from the cross without making sure they are dead.

But that is not the point. We can say that evidence for the resurrection is terribly unconvincing to you. That is fine and its a discussion of a thread on Christianity. There is nothing wrong in saying that if the resurrection is dubious to one, they should not be Christian. It is the reasonable thing to do.

Here the topic is of Buddha. So just like someone would reject Jesus because his resurrection is dubious, they should definitely reject Buddha because he by his own admittance claimed he was just a man.

As I explained with the thought experiment and in many other ways, we cannot just trust a mere man to have discovered what is beyond this world by his own. It is a nonsensical statement to make.

 

[Servant19]

You are asking the wrong question. Before we even wonder if Buddhism has some truth in it or how similar it is to the Christian view, the main question to ask is whether Buddhism is worthy of assent (from the perspective of reasons).

The problem with Buddhism is that its founder claimed to be human. He very clearly did that. As I explained by a thought experiment, it is impossible for a human to say what lies beyond. Even if he were to see it with a vision, he would not know if that corresponds to an actual reality.

This is why Buddha has to struck down from the list of possible candidates (as possibly knowing something from beyond) immediately. This striking down from the list does not assume if Christianity is true or whether Buddhism is compatible with Christianity.

How would you know the Buddha was not endowed with Divinity?

Surely one cannot discern the “true” reality of His being through the remnants of teachings which exist from His time?

Secondly, one cannot presume someone is non- Divine simply because they continuously assert their human aspect. God has a Will, and His Will for the peoples at that time may well have been to emphasize human growth and human development without complicating matters more with idolatry which was so rife during The Buddhas time.

 

[Jaberwocky]

How would you know the Buddha was not endowed with Divinity?

Well, for one, we do not even know if Divinity is something that can be imputed or not unless we already subscribe to some religion that explains how it works.

Second, by his own admittance he was merely human.

Third, he did die and pass away just like every other human we know which does make us think he was definitely just human like he claimed as well.

Surely one cannot discern the “true” reality of His being through the remnants of teachings which exist from His time?

It would also be unreasonable to invent evidence apart from the writings and traditions about him that can be dated to around his lifetime.

Secondly, one cannot presume someone is non- Divine simply because they continuously assert their human aspect. God has a Will, and His Will for the peoples at that time may well have been to emphasize human growth and human development without complicating matters more with idolatry which was so rife during The Buddhas time.

Everything you said here is knowledge that is beyond our knowing. So that knowledge itself will have to come from another religion whose founder would have to be checked for his ability to speak these things too.

In short, we cannot speculate who Buddha was apart from what he claimed and what is apparent from his life. We cannot bring in another religion to justify him unless we have already verified that religion’s validity as well.

 

[Emese]

Ok, so you have to first understand how Christianity works if you really want to start talking about what Jesus taught. We can certainly do that but that is not the topic of discussion here.

The topic of discussion is whether or not to accept Buddha, Jesus or anyone else as a credible source for things beyond this world.

To accept someone as an authority, that person must prove that they have some communication with the beyond or that they are from the beyond. If one already claims he/she is human, then their authority is unworthy of assent due to the reason I highlighted in the thought experiment. You can discover the outside from within. You can only guess what it is. Even if you were to have a vision of what the outside would look like, you wouldn’t know if that place actually existed or it was your imagination.

For that reason, we must reject Buddha from the candidate list immediately by his own admittance that he is merely human.

Then one proceeds to analyze the other candidates and reject or accept them based on what evidence we have to think they are from outside of this world. Those who accept Jesus are the ones who accept his resurrection as evidence. You might feel that the evidence for the resurrection is not good and therefore rightfully reject Christ.

So the point here is not that I am asking for you to be Christian. Not at all! I am merely asking you to be reasonable. It is unreasonable to trust a mere human being as having any knowledge from beyond that was attained by himself.

I don’t consider your argument “reasonable” as I explained in my previous comment.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I don’t consider your argument “reasonable” as I explained in my previous comment.

No worries. But when we say I do not accept your argument as reasonable, you must explain which assumption or premises are wrong etc.

Otherwise it is very possible that we simply fall in to the trap of thinking we have reasonably rejected an objection when we haven’t.

 

[Servant19]

Well, for one, we do not even know if Divinity is something that can be imputed or not unless we already subscribe to some religion that explains how it works.

Second, by his own admittance he was merely human.

Third, he did die and pass away just like every other human we know which does make us think he was definitely just human like he claimed as well.

It would also be unreasonable to invent evidence apart from the writings and traditions about him that can be dated to around his lifetime.

Everything you said here is knowledge that is beyond our knowing. So that knowledge itself will have to come from another religion whose founder would have to be checked for his ability to speak these things too.

In short, we cannot speculate who Buddha was apart from what he claimed and what is apparent from his life. We cannot bring in another religion to justify him unless we have already verified that religion’s validity as well.

Fair enough

I just think that given the lack of authenticity and historicity that can be attributed to the Buddhist Faith, one can only assume verification of certain practices by observing the outcome. Theological concepts from the Buddhas teachings cannot be truly authenticated, so it’s a circular argument to debate it.

However, observing the spiritual practices of Buddhists and the way they go about their stuff to enhance their spiritual condition, one can clearly discern that this is praiseworthy and “Godly”…this logically equates to some form of “Divinity” to be attributed to Him.

Whether one is born and dies is not a proof of LACK of Divinity.
There were many who were raised from the dead in the New Testament as well as the OT, and even in Hinduism.

“By their fruits ye shall know them” and there are plenty of goodly fruits coming from Buddhism

 

[Jaberwocky]

Fair enough

I just think that given the lack of authenticity and historicity that can be attributed to the Buddhist Faith, one can only assume verification of certain practices by observing the outcome. Theological concepts from the Buddhas teachings cannot be truly authenticated, so it’s a circular argument to debate it.

Well no. If the system is merely circular, it actually means we have no reason to really think it true.

For an example, if I were to say you will get 500 virgins in heaven for committing suicide right now, you should not believe me unless you can verify my capacity to know such a thing. The system is circular in that unless you commit suicide right now, you will not know. But that just means you are unreasonable to believe me, right?

However, observing the spiritual practices of Buddhists and the way they go about their stuff to enhance their spiritual condition, one can clearly discern that this is praiseworthy and “Godly”…this logically equates to some form of “Divinity” to be attributed to Him.

Well we do not know if Buddhism “enhances” our spiritual condition because that itself is again a religious claim. At best we can say that the Buddhist practices do seem to have a positive effect in our lives in terms of feeling at peace, ability concentrate more, and perhaps even a sense of joy. But these are things that can be achieved by other means like Psychotherapy and drugs as well which means it is within the naturally knowable scope of things. But the real value of Buddhism, the spiritual aspects, are beyond the naturally knowable scope and the most important. To believe such truths, you need some reason to think the person claiming them is special.

Whether one is born and dies is not a proof of LACK of Divinity.
There were many who were raised from the dead in the New Testament as well as the OT, and even in Hinduism.

The matter is really not about “Divinity” per se. It is about knowing whether a person is from beyond. So the death and resurrection of Christ does not immediately make us think he is God for we may not even know what God is like. It only tells us that he is trustworthy.

There are no OT examples where the person himself raised himself from the dead.

As for Hinduism, we need to go in to each example and see what historical evidence we have to think them true. IF the evidence is good, we accept he is legit. IF not, we reject him.

“By their fruits ye shall know them” and there are plenty of goodly fruits coming from Buddhism

As I said before, the only “Good fruits” we know about are the temporal ones that can be achieved by other natural means as well. So that cannot instill in us any real reason to think Buddhism leads to good spiritual fruits.

For all we know, one can become damned for being a good Buddhist (Christianity or an example would say that because if one is a true Buddhist, they believe in being able to save themselves, strictly speaking. That is an offense against the Creator.)

So its not clear that we can assent to any religion based on their “fruits” unless we are already looking at it from a religious perspective. The quote you made is for Christians who can identify “GOOD” fruits in the spiritual sense by looking through the eyes of faith.

 

[Emese]

No worries. But when we say I do not accept your argument as reasonable, you must explain which assumption or premises are wrong etc.

Otherwise it is very possible that we simply fall in to the trap of thinking we have reasonably rejected an objection when we haven’t.

Yes, I explained it. If you are trying to talk about religion from an “objective” point of view the religious knowledge has to be testable and predictable. As somebody said here buddhism “works” (so you can “test” it for yourself) whilest you are telling me that Christianity is based entirely on an “outsider’s” teaching and the only way of testing the credibility of it is by dying…

 

[rossum]

For that reason, we must reject Buddha from the candidate list immediately by his own admittance that he is merely human.

By saying this, you are also saying that no human can ever correctly know anything about the beyond, or ever have any communication with it. As a Christian you should know that this is a false assumption. Abraham, Moses, Isaiah and all the OT prophets all had such communications, or are you telling us to reject the entire Old Testament?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Jesus was pierced in his side. Roman’s didn’t just take down people early from the cross without making sure they are dead.

When he was pierced, “blood and water” came out. The “water” means that the spear was above the heart (likely if the soldier was standing on the ground and thrusting upwards) and missed the heart but hit the large lymph duct above the heart on the left hand side. A serious wound but not immediately fatal.

The fact that it “came out” showed that His heart was still working at that time – there was pressure in His arteries. A dead person does not bleed a lot because there is no blood pressure to push blood out of the wound.

rossum

 

[Jaberwocky]

When he was pierced, “blood and water” came out. The “water” means that the spear was above the heart (likely if the soldier was standing on the ground and thrusting upwards) and missed the heart but hit the large lymph duct above the heart on the left hand side. A serious wound but not immediately fatal.

The fact that it “came out” showed that His heart was still working at that time – there was pressure in His arteries. A dead person does not bleed a lot because there is no blood pressure to push blood out of the wound.

rossum

Ok. We can discuss this further but this is not the thread for it. What I have stated here is that if Jesus did not rise from the dead and we find good reason to doubt it as a historical claim, then we should reject Christ.

There is no different measurement stick of Buddha vs. Christ. I am prepared and I am advocating that we do apply the same stick to all because that is the reasonable thing to do.

So I fail to see why you are hung up on this point.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Yes, I explained it. If you are trying to talk about religion from an “objective” point of view the religious knowledge has to be testable and predictable. As somebody said here buddhism “works” (so you can “test” it for yourself) whilest you are telling me that Christianity is based entirely on an “outsider’s” teaching and the only way of testing the credibility of it is by dying…

I think I am perhaps not communicating it properly.

My point is not that important religious truths be objectively verifiable. That is impossible by definition because they describe what is beyond.

So what is my point? It is that the credibility of a person should be verifiable. So in the Christian case, the fact that Jesus died and rose from the dead is what makes Jesus credible. That also means that we should be able to verify the resurrection as historical and if its not, the credibility is gone as well.

The problem with Buddha is that he already claims he is merely human. His case ends at that point itself because there is no reason to think he can come to know anything of the beyond.

 

[Jaberwocky]

By saying this, you are also saying that no human can ever correctly know anything about the beyond, or ever have any communication with it. As a Christian you should know that this is a false assumption. Abraham, Moses, Isaiah and all the OT prophets all had such communications, or are you telling us to reject the entire Old Testament?

I think you are not reading what I write in its entirety (or the subtle points in what I say)

I am saying that no man can know what is beyond without help from someone outside. Abraham and the Prophets had the truth revealed to them from the outside.

 

[Emese]

I think I am perhaps not communicating it properly.

My point is not that important religious truths be objectively verifiable. That is impossible by definition because they describe what is beyond.

So what is my point? It is that the credibility of a person should be verifiable. So in the Christian case, the fact that Jesus died and rose from the dead is what makes Jesus credible. That also means that we should be able to verify the resurrection as historical and if its not, the credibility is gone as well.

The problem with Buddha is that he already claims he is merely human. His case ends at that point itself because there is no reason to think he can come to know anything of the beyond.

The resurrection is not verifiable historically. That Jesus rose from the dead is what christians believe, but it is not a historical fact.

 

[rossum]

I am saying that no man can know what is beyond without help from someone outside. Abraham and the Prophets had the truth revealed to them from the outside.

How do you know this? They were only human and may have been mistaken about their claims of external help. Humans can, and do, make mistakes. How can I check that their claims are correct and not an error?

What about the external assistance? Eve had a conversation with a spiritual being before eating the fruit. Was that spiritual being trustworthy? How do we know that the external assistance was telling the truth?

rossum

 

[Jaberwocky]

The resurrection is not verifiable historically. That Jesus rose from the dead is what christians believe, but it is not a historical fact.

That is actually inaccurate. The Resurrection is claimed to be historical. It is the basis of assent to Christianity.

If one were to say that they are uncertain if the resurrection is true, then they should not assent. The matter is that simple and has been said in Christian teaching many times (most recent one I can remember was in condemnation of modernism).

But all of this is missing the fact that you cannot assent without a good reason to think the source credible. Talking about the credibility of Christ doesn’t help boost up Buddha’s credibility, right?