forgotten_aria: (Default)
So I've continued to think on this, research it more. The arguments in documents seem to be not starting from the basic axioms somehow, so I continue to be confused. It's like they believe they know what consciousness is made of, kind of the same way most of use believe that matter is made of subatomic particles, even though most of us haven't ever done experiments to prove those particles exist. So I can kind of see an argument for consciousness being neither created nor destroyed in the same way when objects are created and destroyed, their subatomic particles are basically the same. But that doesn't explain why there can be one mind stream that is connected to this body that was always this mind stream and no one else's. I guess in my realm of understanding anything that has enough complexity to have memory, even if it's just cuts in a rock, also has enough complexity to not be made up of fundamental building blocks. Unless karma is more like the amplitude and frequency of light, where the information isn't transmitted as an alteration of the particle but as state and momentum of that particle. That actually starts to make a little more sense to me. Let's say that consciousness is just a spark, a life energy, then that energy, when it leaves the body upon death could be like a photon leaving an excited atom.

I feel like I understand photons just as poorly as I do consciousness.

This is not an answer, just more questions.

Reincarnation cannot be disproven either, however. This is what makes this tricky. They claim that one does not need faith for Buddhism, but I think we need faith for even science, because we cannot personally prove all the claims around us.

I'm still very confused and a bit frustrated this is preventing me from enjoying the happiness that I usually get from my Monday class. Many of the books I've read have stated it's much more important to want to cultivate compassion for all beings than in believing in reincarnation, so I should likely focus on that instead. Not believing is a non-virtue, but then so is killing anything, even insects, and I don't see myself stopping eating meat, not swatting mosquitos or not putting out ant-traps in my home any time soon.

EDIT: if we continue the light analogy, then at death the consciousness is spit out, say as x-rays, based on the conditions of that past light. If we then assume that a human life can't absorb the x-ray, then it will pass through the human life until it finds something made of "lead" which might be the animal of a body and is absorbed. This would allow for a single consciousness to travel without being so complex as to have a plan as to where it was going but still have the effects of karma guide where it ended up.

I like this model. I'm sure I still don't have it right, but it's a interesting model to think about.
forgotten_aria: (sunset)
So it's my 4 week of beginners classes on Tibetan buddhism and most, I'm very glad I'm going. It's giving me better outlook in a way that people have happily noticed. It's giving me, and, from what I can tell, them more happiness. Since this is a main goal, great!

But the thing I'm finding frustration is that, even though the ultimate goal is to make yourself a better person so you can create happiness for all beings, they seem to emphasis that before you can do that, you must believe in karmic law and reincarnation. They seem to feel logic support it, but that logic is still lost on me. The logic, as explained when I ask, seems circular. You suffer because karmic law says in past life you created a non-virtue and past lives must exist because without it karmic law can't make sense. I also find the motivation of creating virtue so that YOU personally won't be reincarnated as a lower being being rather self-centric. Now, they do believe that you should take care of yourself, so that might be a branch of that, but I feel like just wanting the world to be a better place should be motivation enough and that my motivation for believing the rest should be good enough and that I don't need "becoming an enlightened being in a future life" to be the only reason and motivation for trying to create more happiness in the world for myself and for others. That doesn't make logical sense to me. If I'm motivated to make the net happiness better, shouldn't that be enough of a place to start? I'm only frustrated because so much seems useful, but I feel like I'm not welcome to follow the path unless I change my beliefs for something that is proclaiming it is based on logic. I will continue to learn, since I'm still welcome to do that, and continue to cultivate my new outlook, since it is benefiting me, but I think I am not cut out to be a full Buddhist.

While struggling with this, some other thoughts come to mind. Our lack of memory of past lives is not evidence they do not exist, since most of us don't have memories before the age of 4 or so, which we have a lot of evidence we existed before our memories begin.

Profile

forgotten_aria: (Default)
forgotten_aria

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1234 567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 22nd, 2025 04:55 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios