Care to present evidence against reincarnation? Can I falsify the conjecture that there is no reincarnation? Isn't it obvious that this is a question to which you cannot apply the scientific method as usual?

Similarly about Karma, Destiny, the nature of the soul, Enlightenment, liberation and so on an so forth. Those are not questions to which you can apply the scientific method in its usual form. Thus, they should be tackled by other means.

Intuition is always important, but it is held that the philosophical conjectures of Hinduism and Buddhist thought become evident in the course of methodical spiritual practice.

I, for one, haven't truly reached such a level, but my intuition and logic tell me that the doctrine is (more) elegant (than any other) and very plausible. I can present you with little bits of evidence that those claims should be taken seriously; I cannot present you with anything astounding. But what's more important is that those questions are meant to be sought spiritually; they are not solvable by any scientific means as of yet and they are also very metaphysical in nature.

Burden of proof...blah...blah...care to present evidence against magical pixies...blah...blah...

It's no so simple. And if you can't reject the existence of pixies with logical argument, then it seems you are relying on your intuition.

I don't buy much into the burden of proof idea. I don't see it as quite logical. If there are no arguments for or against something, then the question should be seen as unanswerable.

If my intuition is to not believe in something until there is sufficient reason to do so, then, yes.

With no evidence either way you should be inclined to say "I don't believe in pixies" which is not the same as saying "I believe pixies don't exist." However, what you shouldn't say "I will believe in pixies until there is evidence against them."

This is, by the way, exactly parallel to the agnostic weak atheist position, just in this case, for pixies (or reincarnation).

I still hold that if a huge percentage of the population craves an answer to why the world is as it is and finds it in Buddhism and Hinduism as opposed to Western Science and Philosophy, the reason is that B/H doctrines actually fit better, and not that humans are idiots.

When you doubt the intelligence of your fellow man, you are making a very bold and unsubstantiated claim yourself.

By no means do I want to disregard Science and Philosophy though. I'm just saying that people feel that something is missing and that B/H doctrines have their place as meaningful areas of study.

Meaningful has many meanings, as it were.

The only reason you can say "I don't believe in pixies" with clean conscience is that your intuition tells you that they probably don't exist. You are clearly no longer following strict mathematical probabilistic logic. If you were you'd say "I don't know whether pixies exist or don't."

"I don't know." That's the answer I usually give to any question. Any other answer requires sufficient evidence.

I also often like to point out that nothing is impossible or improbable, until proven so. And it turns out that it's much more difficult to find sufficient proof for any claim, while much easier to rely on your own intuition to give you the details.

I think that people vastly underestimate intuition. One example I can give is that every time I consult my intuition, I compare the specific notion with all my life experience and if it doesn't contradict it in any way, then I deem it worthy of preservation. This is no different than the scientific method and people make intuitive judgements like these hundreds of times per day. They just don't seem to realize it.

I wonder, why is there no such discussion with Christian believers? Ask those guys why you shouldn't masturbate. Can't a fairly elegant and benign doctrine be given some slack?

No.

Answering "I don't believe in pixies" is not mutually exclusive with "I don't know." In fact, with the pixies question (and the God question and the reincarnation question) I'm answering "I don't believe and I don't know."

You do realize, as I pointed out earlier, that the following two statements are completely different, right?
(1) I don't believe pixies exist.
(2) I believe pixies don't exist.

The difference being that intuition is far less rigorous and far more prone to make mistakes. My intuition, for instance, tells me that there's a mugger around every dark corner. Does this live up to scientific rigor, or even common sense? No.

Except we can do an enormous amount of theoretical work with string theory (much as with GR or anything else), the problem is that it does not make testable predictions. One can deductively prove, say, internal logical consistencies and the like. Regardless, it is instructive because it is irrational to believe either string theory or not string theory. Yet you would have us believe in the metaphysical claims of buddhism without testable predictions.

The bolded kind of rests my case. You are assuming it is true as a first principle, and then deducing other very poor justifications after the fact. Btw, saying that it is appealing has no bearing at all on whether it is true. Nor does the fact that people are "Searching" even if the fact that people are searching is not true. I am not searching for some underlying order to reality, for instance.


So answer the flat earth question. This was the intuition of many people, yet it is completely false. Why should I think that intuition without evidence is good?

Please don't quote out of context. Einstein was a spinozan pantheist; this is what he means when he talks of God. He was very critical of mainstream religions.

I admit that all in all, my conjecture has received mainly constructive and logical criticism and don't deny that you have a good point. I'd still say that one has sufficient reason to entertain the belief in karma and rebirth, something which I find totally untrue about monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam. I've laid out my arguments as well as I could, so I won't repeat myself.

I'll point out just one thing. Human intuition is right most of the time and (I repeat myself) it is the main way of getting to know anything. I feel that we can use the overall track record of our intuition to justify whether we decide to entertain a certain conjecture or not. In fact, I'm pretty sure we (and you) do this ALL THE TIME.

It is simply my experience that after I decided to entertain the notion of karma and everything that follows from it, it all fits well in my framework and appeals to my intuition. That is not something that happens to any notion that crosses my mind; quite the contrary.

The only thing that fits even better with my intuition and understanding is Darwin's theory of natural selection, which I do hold should be our primary way of explaining things, until something even more convincing (or at least co-existent) is discovered.

I want to repeat that I respect (almost) all of your criticism and find it extremely valuable, even if I believe that there are reasons to supersede it.

And finally, I feel that I could have done a much better job in pointing out all the good reasons for the existence of karma and the harmonious underlying order that exists just outside of our understanding. Perhaps it is that I'm looking at it from a purely intuitive standpoint. I hope to improve my logical framework for this notion in the future.

Interesting. The same thing happened to me when I embraced the understanding of natural chaos.

most of the time, yes, but not all the time. If I want to know if a girl likes me, I use my intuition. But if I want to know that general relativity is true, I use a much much higher standard. Most things in common life are in the former, but to really know something we have to have a higher standard with evidence and reason and the like. And most of the time we don't go to the higher standard just because of time and efficiency and that it doesn't matter much. But for a fantastical claim like "reincarnation is true" we surely think that is important and want the higher standard to which we need evidence and reason. I want to entertain this conjecture, as you say, and really dig in and find out if it is true. But the problem is that when we do that, you cant supply any evidence or reason for it.

Btw, it is worth remember that my intuition (and billions of others) is directly the the opposite of yours that reincarnation is NOT true. So it is a bad example to rest simply on the laurels of intuition.

Sigh, atheists are frustrating aren't they?

General Relativity - who cares?

One thing I think that is interesting about Hinduism is the caste system. What does that system tell us about the "nationality" of the Buddha, and what are its implications on reincarnation?

Additionally the caste system is interesting to me as it seems similar to the planning in the Law of Moses, as regards to property placement.

Blavatsky> Besant > Jiddhu Krishanmurti > Bruce Lee

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...uce+lee+jiddhu

also for anyone interested, and i may have this slighty off but there a big connection here where Blavastky created the theosophical society which funded the socialist party that become the nazi regime, which is the connection to the swastikas and the belief in a superior race and Atlantis.

No this is a misapplication of the understanding because you are mixing it with preconceived notions on things like the soul and time

The issue its its NOT like trying to learn calculus, your past knowledge doesn't help you for this and would be a hindrance. So for the task at hand being free from knowledge is best.

you are suggest dying is a result of bad karma

I don't think you can separate science from philosophy on this one, doing so make it impossible to answer and study properly. I'm also confident the Dhali lama would smile and agree.

He was asking the question under the premise that there is a soul. Exploring the hypothetical.

In response to op, it is my understanding of hinduism that you can revert back to animal stages etc. by existing in an improper way. Its not inevitable you will go beyond human stage but you can only go higher from human stage not animal. I can't remember and will have to really get the gears going for a bit to try and remember, but i think the answer to your question is its a wrong question and a misapplicatiaon of the teachings.

anyways I'm pretty sure animals can't live 'right' lives.

Anybody who uses a GPS?

I got into this a little and remembered something, not sure if I came up with it or found it in texts.

Animals live in their animal form because they don't have the human capacities that allow us the opportunity to transcend to a high non sentient form. This is mainly compassion and empathy-or sharing.

As humans if we treat these animals harshly they become harsher and are robbed of their ability to sympathize etc. But if we treat them and raise them well, make them secure and less afraid it calms there 'soul' and gives them a chance at a better rebirth (human form).

So people who have been raised in violence etc who become mean and violent themselves slip towards the animal realm and can eventually fall back into it.

You have to remember depending on the branch of what religion you are looking people of the same religion will disagree.

It certainly doesn't allow for the thought that we are all one.

I don't know that I believe in this or that its part of the religion you are reading but I put it out there.