Ian, you say that Buddhism is based on fact and not on faith. Yet you clearly believe in reincarnation and karma. Please tell me one or more things about these beliefs that can legitimately be called facts.

Also, you make no mention of the primary Buddhist belief of the four noble truths - that all of life is suffering , that suffering is caused by desire, that we therefore have to eliminate all desire, and we do that by following the 8 fold path.

How can you just ignore that?

Perhaps it would be easier to call Buddhism “non-theistic” rather than “atheistic” – in as much as the latter term tends to bog people down in rather unprofitable debate. Many years ago, one of my teachers told me that it is possible to conceive of deity as an ocean, covered by a layer of ice, which is the world. While many religious traditions spend a great deal of time trying to cut holes through the ice, to reveal god (well, a bit of god, as viewed through that particular hole) to their followers, Buddhists simply want to walk across the ice, without falling over. Rather like the Buddha’s response to Malunkyaputta: if you’re shot with an arrow, it’s probably best to take it out, rather than speculating about who fired it, or how it was made - and dying before having all of your questions answered. It is, however, true that Buddhist traditions have their own articles of faith, most notably rebirth. However, this is not considered in the four truths, nor is it directly related to the eightfold path – so, should you subscribe to it as belief? Beats me.

just about anyone can explain the theory of eternal incarnation..ie the central buddist philosophy on dying...that neatly sidesteps than unthinkable stage in between this and that

i also revolt against this obsession to mindlessnes...no mind...how dreadfull...little wonder many oppressive regemes..,love the meek buddists..unthinking/mindless...it sort of gets covered in its own nothingness

quote<<..Look deeply into impermanence,..and you will find it has another message,..another face,..one of great hope,..one that opens your eyes to the fundamental nature of the universe,..and our extraordinary relationship to it.>>>then in the next breath FAILING to reveal the greatness/cause...even that first cause...that first life

<<..If everything is impermanent,..then everything is what we call..“empty”...That means lacking in any lasting,..stable,.and inherent existence>>except that infernal perpetual reincarnation...eh?

it claims..<<..all things..lol[when seen..and understood]..in their true relation,..are not independent.. but instead inter-dependent with all other things>>>..which is a fine beginning...BUT NOT THE BEGINNING...

not an explanation...

those needing more..will find many teqniques...that shut up your thinking...mindlessness/acceptance..seeing evil/..as some karmic ballancing..mindless extends into mindlessness..

not full mindedness..[that are thus become/budda's...but you reach mindfullness..via mind emptyness...is not the true path...yeah sure there is much goodness...but lacking the god head...they whoreship creation/not creator/cause..the means by which the karma gets fullsome redress

that all loving the living budda strives for...despite the challange of mindless/suffereing//the oneness...that reaches allness...if your not trying to do good have you good done?

the deeper questions simply escape the novvices...sitting there with cramping legs..repeating the mantra to unthinking mindlessness...to the point where they unwill the will to live...only to go on living...and in time reincarnate...

far fewer human re-incarnations occuor..than..that buddist..'-isms..would have us..not..think about..minfully mindless.the great nothing..that yet is everything.oh ...oooh...ohhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

im most mindless..[that means a stone is budda...ommmmmmm.ooommmmmmommmm...lol...can hear you...ohmmmm.0hmmm.ommm.ommm.ommmommm.o.mmm

JP, I am not sure that the word "desire" is the most appropriate. In the Zen tradition it is more usual to speak of "attachments" which is subtly different You are of course quite right to challenge Ian on his rather loose use of the word "fact".

Think of a fish... no, not that fish, some other fish. Are you thinking of a fish? That fish is like a Buddhist, all wet. Death may be meaningless, but I bet Ian Nance would decline firmly if you offered to move his clock to midnight for him.

Still, it's good to be reminded sometimes that Eastern religions are just as incoherent and silly as our home-grown equivalents -- in fact more so, since they haven't had to defend themselves against five hundred years of scientific progress.

As Woody Allen once said: "Don't think of death as the end. Think of it as a really good way of cutting down on expenses."

The author wrote;

'Many people classify Buddhism as a religion, but that is not really true. It is a practice based not on faith, but on fact.'

And I should like to point that Western Civilisation also has a wonderful tradition along the same 'fact' based philosophy as Buddhism. It began with Socrates, then progressed to David Hume and Charles Darwin. I now look forward to the 'Rise of Atheism' conference in Melbourne next year with Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer et al.

What a shame that Western societies, and the globe generally, are still mired in the tired myopia of monotheistic xenophobia.

While the author's idea that his Buddhist beliefs help people to be less afraid of dying through the act of reincarnation, I agree with other posts that say there is no proof for this.

It does remind me of the Christian belief that Jesus 'rose again' during his supposed resurection, so I guess they can hardly say anything against reincarnation!

There are some nice ideas in Bhuddism such as the interconnectedness of all living things but there are also nice ideas in Christianity such as do unto others. This does not mean the religion or way of life has any basis in truth or fact as the author implies.

Ultimately it comes down to a personal choice. Humans are both social beings, needing the companionship of others, and also highly individualistic which explains the vast numbers of religions and philosophies to which people subscribe.

Concepts such as reincarnation, karma and heaven are all ways of coping with the idea of death and dying.

Ian, this is something I've ruminated on and come to the conclusion that Buddhism's closer to the general ball-park of a faithless, agnostic spirituality than any of the other major world religions, but it still has its faith hangups which run contrary to the available evidence.

Consider this. You spoke of the interconnectedness of all things. How nothing was whole, but it was connected and they were all seemingly disparate but forming a lattice.

The concept of reincarnation contradicts this.
You state that my singular consciousness, connected albeit with my thoughts being mine alone, would be reincarnated in another singular whole form, despite the physical self being broken down and reformed?

And there's some kind of pecking order based on the acquisition of wisdom?

A bridge too far.

That's no reason to discard this whole idea entirely however.

The fact is, we each do possess a singular consciousness. My thoughts are mine.
But we can't rule out that any given 'consciousness' was formed by some kind of energy that forms in masses, coalescing in brains, leading to different concentrations and intelligences.
That kind of arrangement applies to everything. Recycled and re-used. This energy strikes me as a much more mature concept of god, having been separated from the simplistic imposition of omniscient intelligence (a contradiction in terms in my book).

So, I take solace in the idea that whilst when I die, I'll not come back as anything so singularly prosaic as a rabbit or an encyclopaedia salesman. Portions might, some energy might be in electrical wires or a bushfire and my physical self will be strewn across innumerable objects and substances.

There's the next step for you, Ian.
Ditch the morality tale, it's not needed when you realise decency is a path to fulfilment without the faith-based reincarnation fable. Ditch the need to even exist as a singular consciousness or object, which is the stumbling block for most, who haven't embraced the real idea of an intertwined existence, but dress up their faith as a concept which has.

Well said TRTL.

I agree with your thoughts on both Buddhism and the fact that everything in the universe is recycled. Buddhism is the one religion that does not have difficulties with science, particularly evolution. Also Buddhists are working with scientists on understanding brain function:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/s943369.htm

<< Ditch the need to even exist as a singular consciousness or object >>

Absolutely.

This article confirmed some parts of my understandings of Buddhism.

Being a Christian I beg to differ on the author's claim that Buddhism is "based on facts, not faith" unlike religions. Contra this claim- the opposite is true- Christianity is based on the fact of Jesus Resurrection. Personally I'm very much persuaded by the arguments for Jesus Resurrection put forward by some of the most brilliant modern day scholars such as N T Wright and William Lane Craig. And upon putting forward claims for the resurrection in the past on discussion boards such as this, I've never read anything by anyone which has seriously even come close to defeating the evidences.

However, I'll digress from that because it isn't my main point. My main point is that the "fact not faith" was a misleading comment, because of the implication that facts and faith are somehow opposed. Facts and reason can only get one so far- hence, faith is required. Not only that, but every worldview and every system of acquiring knowledge is ultimately based on faith anyway.

Even science. Any honest scientist would admit as much, but if you beg to differ, check out Paul Davies article "Taking Science on Faith" which appeared in the New York Times in 2007.

Nice try at an explanation, but you went over the heads of the Christians I'm afraid. Having a Faith, all they see is other Faiths. They simply don't get Philosophy; Thinking was trained out of them in school. Dogma and thinking don't work together so it is not surprising that Christians see Science and Philosophy as "competing" faiths. ("If all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails")
The impermanence start was good but this wasn't really used to link to Karma ('cause and effect') and what reincarnation *really* means (Once impermanence is internalised and "being" understood then it sort of flows naturally.) Modern multi verse physics is also completely compatible.
Like all pseudo/neo-Buddhists who came to it via my own path, I can see exactly what the author was trying to say, but would disagree with some of the language used. Please keep trying! the Theists and Deists continually try to mis-represent the Buddhist Tao, so it is great to see someone try and help the seekers. (There is no help for the brainless.)

So, thinking was trained out of "The Christians" at school, was it Ozandy?

Consider that so many of the top ranking schools are Christian schools, and the roles that those schools play in nurturing and developing great young minds.

Therefore, it is utterly indefensible to imply that Christian schools somehow reduce or stifle childrens education or thinking- on the contrary, there is evidence which suggests that the opposite is true.

The second thing that I must take you up on is the assumption that "The Christians" all go to Christian schools. What nonsense.

oh the huge mystery...
of.................................
the Buddhist Tao,............................................................................................................................................... tao.............means...................
.....................................the way

branding is everything...................apparently...lol

we have this real secret...the tao
sounds so much better than we have ........the way

the way to mindless-ness...no mind...no way

the heading was buddists on dying
if it was re-incarnation...jesus did that
and for those educated buddists...who say that was reserection...not reincarnation...your correct [of course...

but re-incarnation was believed by the xtians..till nycia...when they dropped the concept...not because it were wrong
but because,...what good giving grace..[jesus forgiving our sins/died by our sins...if karma is the only reality...

well its not...re-incarnmation is more about picking a medium...that can channel...the dead master...possesion...

there is the other lower..re-incarnation's of course..but more usually it is a downgrade...into beasts...like the king in the o.t..that...thought...it..was a beast in the field...[for 8 years]..

there are other biblical references..but will let you continue...on your tao..[way]

the key is enjoying..doing the good unto others...and buddists appear to do this....only they dont need to suffere..so much..for their faith..you dont get extra points..for deliberate suffereing

I recently saw my life partner die in an intensive care unit. She had toxic shock and multiple organ failure. A few hours before the life support systems were turned off, a cerebral oedema had shut her brain down.
Nevertheless, as she died, her body arched and she almost sat up as she seemed to be trying to get one last breath.
Death IS something to be feared and it seems to me, as an atheist, that that very reasonable fear creates the need for such beliefs as reincarnation and life after death. I respect those beliefs in others.
The meaning of death for me is it encourages us to cherish what we have while we have it, to enjoy every moment of every day while planning for tomorrow, and not to waste time and energy on denigrating ourselves or others. Be gentle; we all have this opportunity to help one another.

“(M)any people hold an assumption that the scientific view of the world should be the basis for all knowledge and all that is knowable. This is scientific materialism. ... Underlying this view is the assumption that, in the final analysis, matter as it can be described by physics and as it is governed by the laws of physics, is all there is. ...

One of the principal problems with a radical scientific materialism is its narrowness of vision that results and the potential for nihilism that might ensue. ... In this view many dimensions of the full reality of what is to be human - art, ethics, spirituality, goodness, beauty, and above all, consciousness - either are reduced to the chemical reactions of firing neurons or are seen as a matter of purely imaginary constructs. The danger then is that human beings may be reduced to nothing more than biological machines, the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes, with no purpose other than the biological imperative of reproduction.

It is difficult to see how questions such as the meaning of life or good and evil can be accommodated within such a worldview. The problem is not with the empirical data of science but with the contention that these data alone constitute the legitimate ground for developing a comprehensive worldview or an adequate means of responding to the world’s problems. There is more to human existence and to reality itself than current science can ever give us access to.”
(Dalai Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom - The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, Morgan Road 2005, pp. 12-13)

Thank you, Jolyon - as a fellow atheist who has recently lost my dear wife, my dearest companion, my mate, I have to come to terms with death, the death of someone else besides oneself, someone one loves passionately, a predicament which (with respect) Mr Nance either skirts around or seems to be oblivious of. I don't care about my own life, except insofar as somebody may love me and be desolated if I go, but I do care about the lives of other people who I love and care for: their passing has enormous impact on me and other people. Who cares whether one is reincarnated, or goes to some other place, or finds a place in a heavenly choir, or is reanimated as a blowfly or whatever - people that we love live and contribute and shape our lives, and thereby leave a permanent impact on us - they have enriched our lives, they have made a difference, and in that sense, they will live on - in our hearts and in the stories we tell others. Life is struggle, yes, but it's not for nothing. We come into being, we act on other people for good or ill, we go: we each have our flash of eternity, but what we do with it IS important, if not for ourselves then for others. We get only one flash each and others will judge how we use it. Not resignation, not release, but rage, rage against the dying of the light ! Make a difference !

Joe

Jolyon and Joe, I was really moved by your eloquent words on the recent passing of your' loved ones.
It sounds like the two of you were very supportive partners.

I have been involved and present at many deaths in my work situation over many years. Yes, there have been what we call both 'good' and 'bad' deaths.

Good deaths were those that seemed peaceful and painfree, with loved ones by their sides. These deaths were lovely, no matter what religion or culture they were from, or whether they had no religious beliefs at all.

Bad deaths were those that were unable to be medically managed to reduce or prevent the suffering caused by pain, vomiting, nausea, fear , and cerebral irritation.

No amount of palliative care can help these people unfortunately.
No thoughts of where they will go after death, or whether they will be reincarnated or not would help these people at all.

They just wanted to die to stop the suffering. Nothing else mattered.