Page 5 of 5

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:31 pm
by retrofuturist
Greetings,
SamKR wrote:Personally in my practice, considering everything in the "external" and "internal" world that is seen, heard, sensed, cognized as merely seen, heard, sensed, cognized - just experiences arising dependently yet naturally and effortlessly (without assuming any object/subject, and here/there) - has been more helpful, I think. Also, contemplating that experienced world (normally considered to be somewhere out there) is the experience itself arising nowhere (without location) has changed my understanding of dependent origination - which I find to fit with the Pali suttas, and things that didn't make sense before are making sense now. Whatever "external object" I see is an experience arising without location, and it can already be a meditation if there is mindfulness.
+1

... and given the importance the Buddha assigns to dependent origination, and that "deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance", it would seem (and speaking personally, is) a matter of great significance to Dhammic practice.

:anjali:

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:33 am
by chownah
mikenz66 wrote:
chownah wrote: In addition to this the Buddha taught to drop views....even what seems like perfectly good ones.......so what is the rationale for so tenaciously holding to this view of an external world?
I mostly agree. As you say, insisting on the existence of an external world would be clinging to one particular view. On the other hand, insisting that there is no external world, and that anyone who does have the view that there is an external world is misguided, is also clinging to a particular view.

Neither view is supported by the suttas, as far as I can tell. Therefore, whatever view you happen to have right now (and all of us have some view...) is largely irrelevant, as long as is it not insisted on.

:anjali:
Mike
Indeed, declaring or denying the existence of an external world are both unjustified as that kind of existence can not be proven or falsified. So, what to do? For starters one can simply swallow one's pride and in a private place where no one can see or hear you declare to yourself that indeed there is no way possible to prove or disprove the existence of an external world and then one can immediately reassure ones self by also stating that it sure does SEEM like there is an external world and that it is OK to keep on with daily life as if an external world definitely existed. This seems like a simple thing but many people are really loathe to do this and I expect it has to do with feelings of insecurity originating as a result of holding a doctrine of self too tightly. The nice thing about this is that it will hopefully lead you to a view of the external world more in line with right view which is the view that one cannot know for sure if an external world exists.

And backing up even farther I have noticed that the people who cling most tightly to the view of external world are also the people who are absolutely convinced that how they see that external world is correct and true......they really want their ideas to prevail and are very hesitant to admit a mistake or misconception. For those people the topic of external world might be too sensitive an issue to address and perhaps it is better for them to admit having a misconception about some more trivial issue. So for them maybe it would be better to start by secluding ones self and declaring something along the lines of "I thought I would be on time but I was late....I made a mistake....but it is ok to make a mistake as everyone makes them....I'll try to do better next time both in being on time and in admitting to my mistakes." This may seem ridiculous to some people but many people are very afraid of making any blunder at all and admitting even the slightest fault for them should be considered a major achievement.
chownah

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:46 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings,
chownah wrote:And backing up even farther I have noticed that the people who cling most tightly to the view of external world are also the people who are absolutely convinced that how they see that external world is correct and true......
Actually, on a slightly related note, the Meyers-Briggs distinction between Sensing and iNtution (which forms the 2nd letter in the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator) seems pertinent here as well. I am increasingly convinced that S's & N's have different ways in which they best learn or appreciate the significance of Dhammic issues... it's not a case of one size fits all in terms of how you get there, yet, the same Dhamma awaits being learned irrespective of your type.
Sensing or Intuition

The second pair of psychological preferences is Sensing and Intuition. Do you pay more attention to information that comes in through your five senses (Sensing), or do you pay more attention to the patterns and possibilities that you see in the information you receive (Intuition)?

Everyone spends some time Sensing and some time using Intuition. Don’t confuse Sensing with sensual. They aren’t related.

Take a minute to ask yourself which of the following descriptions seems more natural, effortless, and comfortable for you?

Sensing (S)
Paying attention to physical reality, what I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. I’m concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real. I notice facts and I remember details that are important to me. I like to see the practical use of things and learn best when I see how to use what I’m learning. Experience speaks to me louder than words.

The following statements generally apply to me:

I remember events as snapshots of what actually happened.
I solve problems by working through facts until I understand the problem.
I am pragmatic and look to the “bottom line.”
I start with facts and then form a big picture.
I trust experience first and trust words and symbols less.
Sometimes I pay so much attention to facts, either present or past, that I miss new possibilities.

Intuition (N)
Paying the most attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information I get. I would rather learn by thinking a problem through than by hands-on experience. I’m interested in new things and what might be possible, so that I think more about the future than the past. I like to work with symbols or abstract theories, even if I don’t know how I will use them. I remember events more as an impression of what it was like than as actual facts or details of what happened.

The following statements generally apply to me:

I remember events by what I read “between the lines” about their meaning.
I solve problems by leaping between different ideas and possibilities.
I am interested in doing things that are new and different.
I like to see the big picture, then to find out the facts.
I trust impressions, symbols, and metaphors more than what I actually experienced
Sometimes I think so much about new possibilities that I never look at how to make them a reality.

I think a Sensor (S) is much more likely to be insistent upon the existence of an external world, because their personal sense of reality is so much more strongly predicated upon it.

Source: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-pers ... uition.asp

Metta,
Retro., INFJ :)

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:41 am
by tiltbillings


"Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife" is sciency.

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:13 am
by Spiny Norman
retrofuturist wrote:Actually, on a slightly related note, the Meyers-Briggs distinction between Sensing and iNtution (which forms the 2nd letter in the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator) seems pertinent here as well. I am increasingly convinced that S's & N's have different ways in which they best learn or appreciate the significance of Dhammic issues... it's not a case of one size fits all in terms of how you get there,
I agree, Retro, and I suspect that different Buddhist traditions attract different personality types.

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:46 am
by Kim OHara
Spiny Norman wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Actually, on a slightly related note, the Meyers-Briggs distinction between Sensing and iNtution (which forms the 2nd letter in the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator) seems pertinent here as well. I am increasingly convinced that S's & N's have different ways in which they best learn or appreciate the significance of Dhammic issues... it's not a case of one size fits all in terms of how you get there,
I agree, Retro, and I suspect that different Buddhist traditions attract different personality types.
Some invitations are just too good too resist ... okay, I give in ...
Match the smileys to the traditions:
:reading:
:candle:
:guns:
:alien:
:sage:

... but you'll have to resist the temptation to reply to this because of the TOS.
:toilet:

Okay ... :focus:

Kim

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:51 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Kim,

Is the spaceship Dhammakaya? ;)

(it's OK, it's the lounge ;) )

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:26 am
by Spiny Norman
Kim OHara wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Actually, on a slightly related note, the Meyers-Briggs distinction between Sensing and iNtution (which forms the 2nd letter in the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator) seems pertinent here as well. I am increasingly convinced that S's & N's have different ways in which they best learn or appreciate the significance of Dhammic issues... it's not a case of one size fits all in terms of how you get there,
I agree, Retro, and I suspect that different Buddhist traditions attract different personality types.
Some invitations are just too good too resist ... okay, I give in ...
Match the smileys to the traditions:
:reading:
:candle:
:guns:
:alien:
:sage:
:clap:

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:46 am
by Buckwheat
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
chownah wrote:And backing up even farther I have noticed that the people who cling most tightly to the view of external world are also the people who are absolutely convinced that how they see that external world is correct and true......
Actually, on a slightly related note, the Meyers-Briggs distinction between Sensing and iNtution (which forms the 2nd letter in the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator) seems pertinent here as well. I am increasingly convinced that S's & N's have different ways in which they best learn or appreciate the significance of Dhammic issues... it's not a case of one size fits all in terms of how you get there, yet, the same Dhamma awaits being learned irrespective of your type.
Sensing or Intuition

The second pair of psychological preferences is Sensing and Intuition. Do you pay more attention to information that comes in through your five senses (Sensing), or do you pay more attention to the patterns and possibilities that you see in the information you receive (Intuition)?

Everyone spends some time Sensing and some time using Intuition. Don’t confuse Sensing with sensual. They aren’t related.

Take a minute to ask yourself which of the following descriptions seems more natural, effortless, and comfortable for you?

Sensing (S)
Paying attention to physical reality, what I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. I’m concerned with what is actual, present, current, and real. I notice facts and I remember details that are important to me. I like to see the practical use of things and learn best when I see how to use what I’m learning. Experience speaks to me louder than words.

The following statements generally apply to me:

I remember events as snapshots of what actually happened.
I solve problems by working through facts until I understand the problem.
I am pragmatic and look to the “bottom line.”
I start with facts and then form a big picture.
I trust experience first and trust words and symbols less.
Sometimes I pay so much attention to facts, either present or past, that I miss new possibilities.

Intuition (N)
Paying the most attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information I get. I would rather learn by thinking a problem through than by hands-on experience. I’m interested in new things and what might be possible, so that I think more about the future than the past. I like to work with symbols or abstract theories, even if I don’t know how I will use them. I remember events more as an impression of what it was like than as actual facts or details of what happened.

The following statements generally apply to me:

I remember events by what I read “between the lines” about their meaning.
I solve problems by leaping between different ideas and possibilities.
I am interested in doing things that are new and different.
I like to see the big picture, then to find out the facts.
I trust impressions, symbols, and metaphors more than what I actually experienced
Sometimes I think so much about new possibilities that I never look at how to make them a reality.

I think a Sensor (S) is much more likely to be insistent upon the existence of an external world, because their personal sense of reality is so much more strongly predicated upon it.

Source: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-pers ... uition.asp

Metta,
Retro., INFJ :)
Odd, while reading this I was thinking a) "I am squarely in the intuitive camp" and b) intuitives are much more likely to believe in a "real-world-out-there" because we are the ones who cling to symbols and patterns as the foundation of our reality. You totally threw me for a curveball by suggesting Sensor would be more likely to cling to an external world.

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:19 pm
by Cittasanto
A video regarding this claim features Professor Phil Moriarty, a physicist at the University of Nottingham