Here's why I cannot rule out reincarnation
I rebuilt my beliefs around science and math following a framework laid out by human thinkers around 4,000 years ago. I take these major ideas from religion and break them down to see if there's any basis in science to support them.
Over the years I have whittled down (away) the abrahamic religions due to their obvious mysticism. I got stuck at Buddhism because it has no deity, but I still find some inkling of potential in consciousness as the elusive "soul" or "self". Buddhism led me to the Upanishads which are nothing but philosophy nuggets from old thinkers in ancient SE Asia and China. Amid those ancient sanskrit scrolls was one particular upanishad in the artha veda - Mandukya.
The mandukya upanishad described the 4 levels of consciousness used by modern psychologists today. It also reminded us that the world we think we see around us is all created in our heads and also resides there. The universe is actually some other medium that allows the flow of probabilities for inputs that will affect our senses. That's modern physics and reality. The universal rules that we learn do nothing more than tell us what rules our mind is using to interpret the input it receives.
This is where the rub lies. That 4th level of consciousness, turiya, is independent of the senses and any form of measure. There's no way to record or measure the recorder without some objective position and there is no other objective position from pure awareness. In the world of quantum physics that could potentially be a reference to the probabilities we have influenced into the future. Perhaps in some yet unknown field of study those probabilities and potential could be an actual, tangible thing. Karma would be the appropriate name.
All vedic philosophy relies on ridding ones' self of karma so those probabilities don't make us bear another miserable existence. I am trying to decipher which parts of that philosophy stem from ignorance and culture etc... and which might have some basis in science and fact. I can't completely write that off. There can be some remnants of things we affect that extend part our body's life and that might have some form. So my search continues.
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.At the risk of having verbal tomatoes thrown at me...
The population graph does not support reincarnation.
Heathenman
Level 7
Oct 18, 2019
1
yet another one of those instances where not knowing enough about a subject allows someone to make a comment that THEY think is intelligent but is in reality rather ignorant of the topic.
Physics gives some plausibility same for so called ghosts
bobwjr
Level 10
Oct 15, 2019
1
I think there is a whole field of observation that we don't know enough about to truly discuss and measure. yet. But that doesn't mean we can't speculate.
In my entire life I have not been about to rulle out reincarnation because of this:
"The equation E = mc^2 states that the amount of energy possessed by an object is equal to its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. ... Additionally, the equation suggests that energy and mass are interchangeable with each other. In other words, energy can be converted to mass and mass to energy." [study.com]
To me, reincarnation does seem fairly scientific.
AnonySchmoose
Level 8
Oct 15, 2019
1
Yup I know
"That 4th level of consciousness, turiya, is independent of the senses and any form of measure. " so ...imaginary then?
LenHazell53
Level 9
Oct 15, 2019
0
so no filters.. or no obvious filters?
so you think we know everything there is to know about science and physics?
@JeffMesser No, but I will always favour discovery by scientific method over the millennia old ramblings of dead bronze age preachers who thought it was the most profound thing in the world to declare that we can identify god (brahman) because he is not this and not this, without ever being able to explain what it is, because that would make it "this" and thus not god.
Wow I and I thought christians were dumb.
@LenHazell53 where do you think that scientific method came from? make sure to tell the entire western world of psychology that the vedic methodology of self-examination is bunk since it's what they are trying to do now - catch up with hindustan ideas of 4,000+ years ago. you have a lot to learn.
@JeffMesser I know the scientific method evolved from natural philosophy and was formalised in the renaissance specifically in the 17th century, are you insinuating otherwise?
@LenHazell53 yep. long before that. the various jnana manga of hindu beliefs formulated the scientific centuries before that. Millenia before even. as I said you've got a lot to learn.
@JeffMesser You specifically asked about the scientific method, and I answered that question, you sir are intellectually dishonest.
@LenHazell53 intellectually dishonest? read the Vivekachudamani by Shankara. hypothesis, reasoning, direct experience, predictable results. that was from the 8th century discussing jnana manga methodology from the upanishads. you are light on knowledge. it's a good read. learn some sanskrit.
@JeffMesser I did actually mention the earlier natural philosophers who contributed over time to what actually was formalised by Francis Bacon as the scientific method, including the arabic physicians, the indian vedas and as I said you chose to dispute my correct answer by "moving the goalposts" which as you well know is a primary defining characteristic of the intellectually dishonest rhetorician and the sort petty fogging and wheedling practice of the mountebank.
@JeffMesser by the way I believe you meant to type jnana-marga not jnana-manga, manga is a Japanese comic book art style and so far as I know has nothing to do with Sankhya, Vedanta or Yoga, please correct me if I am wrong. The wise man always knows he has a lot to learn.
@LenHazell53 yeah my typing sucks. it's marga for path
@LenHazell53 confirming a theory by practical experience is not some magical method for producing truth. it's just a systematic method of approaching problem solving. I'd say Mr. Bacon was 2,000+ years behind. Sanatana dharma did it first.
Everything I think could be wrong.
And...
I think that if your search is motivated (consciously or otherwise) by a longing for immortality, you might spend your time better going fishing, or taking a nap. Not that I would deprive a brother the opportunity to see for himself, but I think that is what you will find.
I think we don't need to understand quantum physics in order to find peace of mind in the here and now, and I think peace of mind in this life is the best thing that is actually on the menu.
If I'm wrong, and reincarnation is on the menu, the time to enjoy it, I'm still convinced, would be in your next life.
skado
Level 9
Oct 15, 2019
2
and that is the buddhist view. I just happen to disagree about the self.
Brilliant work! I feel the vedas, and the Upanishads particularly, are pretty close to what is going on, especially when the ideas are supported by quantum mechanics,
I love the ‘flow of possibilities’ idea. Could be a reference to ‘entanglement’
Have you looked at The Tao of Physics by Ftitjof Capra from around 1985. It frames quantum physics in an Eastern context.
Geoffrey51
Level 8
Oct 15, 2019
1
thanks! yes I have. that was a while back. working on biophotons now.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.