»Is The Matrix Real?«

neo1, I understand what you are saying, too. And while I agree with your assessment in regards to the course most religions have taken, I would be more cautious about making generalising statements intended to encompass all of them.

But please, give an example of what you're talking about that convinced you of it.

intell wrote:

Ah yes. I am acquainted with this Buddhist doctrine and the related Hindu concept of OM or AUM.

The concept of OM or AUM is different from the concept of Attman and Anattman.

intell wrote:

A problem arising from this concept is that we are to accept this as true and logical despite having no model to draw from or any other way to demonstrate its veracity. This is a perspective that becomes others' by being taught to them rather than a logical conclusion reached.

I had not really been exposed to Buddhist doctrine when I reached this conclusion. There were several philsophers/literary critics whose ideas certainly pointed me in this direction, and lots of neo-Platonists. But the idea of an original inseperable whole came to me on my own with time. That's why I picked Buddhism as my religion all those years ago, because it rang true with what I was already beginning to feel on my own.

As for the concept's veracity and proof, I highly recommend a book called "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot. He is a physicist, and as far as I know neither a Buddhist or Hindu. The book delves rather in-depth into the concept of the holographic model of universal study. And simultaneously touches on quite a few of the ideas that Buddhism and Hinduism present. Or if you like movies, The Elegant Universe and What the Bleep Do We Know both have some fantastic concepts that point to certain Buddhist truths and both films were produced by scientists not theologians or Buddhists/Hindus.

Buddhism very much invites science. No creator god or creation myth is postulated exactly because there is no way of proving it. And if science proves the origin of this specific universe, Buddhism would readily accept it. Buddhism also is very open with the idea that its mythology may be wrong. But whether there is truely one Buddha-nature we all are manifestations of or not, using the belief that I am you and you are me helps make me an infinitely more compassionate person. And since my actions and reactions cause actions and reactions in you, we are one in that interaction. In this way it is important to remember that all is linked. To affect another is to affect yourself and to affect yourself is to affect another (which the Matrix speaks of as well). The goal of Buddhism is not to get people believing in deities, but to end suffering and foster compassion. Buddhist leaders tend not to be concerned with taking myth as historical fact (in fact they often dissapprove of doing so). Buddhism is a model for helping one become a compassionate and wise being.

Before you say it too, I'm not trying to impose my view over yours, just defending my religion and offering its view on the topic at hand.

intell wrote:

Another question is: if I am you, you don't really have to answer that do you?

Oddly enough in Kwan Um School of Buddhism ordinations, this is a call and response used. Master asks a question, new JDPSN answers "you already know."

It should also be emphasized that while Buddhism calls Buddha-nature original mind, it is not a mind. Any mind or soul or form of consciousness is a delusion. To truely be all is to be all. All is all, there is no original all versus a separated all, there is only all. It is merely the illusion of seperation that seperates us. But there is no seperation (The Holographic Universe can help explain this scientifically if you read it and don't want a Buddhist perspective).

I have to admit, intell. I'm a little shocked by this latest post of yours. From your posts I gather that you are a fairly devote Christian. And of course, it is often argued that Christianity lacks proof and veracity. So to renounce another religion by saying it is unprovable seems a bit silly when one is a practitioner of a religion that is often accused of being unprovable (and I am not saying it is unprovable, just that there are those who say it is).

The trouble with old lies is that people are taught them from childhood and they grow up to teach their children. The lies become an integral part of the cultural matrix. The question becomes, "Is there any underlying truth in all the garbage." If you junk the whole thing the truth goes out with it. If you don't junk it how do you sort what is garbage from what isn't?

Theological axiom #1:

God cannot be stupid!

Everything we have learned about psychology and socialpsychology God had to already know it. How can this eternal suffering of hell make any sense? Would a God with any intelligence use such a system?

Would HE/SHE/IT use hell in some cultures and reincarnation in others? Is the confusion of purely human origin?

intell wrote:

But please, give an example of what you're talking about that convinced you of it.

Can you please alberate more on this statement.

capt... wrote:

Before you say it too, I'm not trying to impose my view over yours, just defending my religion and offering its view on the topic at hand.

I wasn't going to say it. You're simply anwering the question I asked, which you're doing pretty well. So let's get into it for a sec.

capt... wrote:

I highly recommend a book called "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot. He is a physicist, and as far as I know neither a Buddhist or Hindu. The book delves rather in-depth into the concept of the holographic model of universal study. And simultaneously touches on quite a few of the ideas that Buddhism and Hinduism present. Or if you like movies, The Elegant Universe and What the Bleep Do We Know both have some fantastic concepts that point to certain Buddhist truths and both films were produced by scientists not theologians or Buddhists/Hindus.

I hope to check out "What the Bleep..." this weekend. I just want to clarify that I don't mind the source, whether Hindu/Buddhist or scientific. I'm not prejudiced against or for any of them. I might even prefer a Hindu or Buddhist presentation rather than an attempt to marry science with ideology which have sometimes ended up doing disservice to both. But okay. I'll check it out.

capt... wrote:

I have to admit, intell. I'm a little shocked by this latest post of yours. From your posts I gather that you are a fairly devote Christian.

Meh. I know and have read up quite a bit on it.

capt... wrote:

it is often argued that Christianity lacks proof and veracity. So to renounce another religion by saying it is unprovable seems a bit silly when one is a practitioner of a religion that is often accused of being unprovable

Now ain't that something? I think I'll withhold responding to that one. I didn't intend to renounce a religion, I intended to refute a teaching. There is a difference.

Quote:

The goal of Buddhism is not to get people believing in deities, but to end suffering and foster compassion.

A most worthwhile goal. But do you really have to appeal to the self-centered inclination of humanity to encourage action against it in accomplishing this goal?

iow. If I am actually you then what you do to me really either benefits or harms you (or original mind). So then compassion for me is no longer selfless but selfish. Now one could argue that there is no self anymore there is just original mind. But we're back to the question, What is inherently flawed about a universal mind that causes it to have something I can only describe as a split personality disorder (no offense intended), thinking that it is both animate and inanimate things distinct in nature? Or, if our concept of reality is a delusion, what is the cause? I'm really interested in the answer.

I agree that you don't need to believe in accountability to another person (ie god or other diety) to practice compassion. But neither is the above concept necessary for right-hearted people with any honest sense of justice to do so either. Right?

psikeyhackr wrote:

Everything we have learned about psychology and socialpsychology God had to already know it. How can this eternal suffering of hell make any sense? Would a God with any intelligence use such a system?

To answer both questions - "Hell no!" (pun intended)

Quote:

Would HE/SHE/IT use hell in some cultures and reincarnation in others? Is the confusion of purely human origin?

Same answer. The confusion is human as you suspect.

Neo1 wrote:

Can you please alberate more on this statement.

This. Give an example of this:

Quote:

religion i feel clouds a persons path, miss-leeds them into believeing something that is not reel. and when a person does find the truth then the miss-leeding path that they have taken through religion maybe hard to see, understand, swollow.

dupl post. sorry m8s

Intell i cant give an example, the statment that i write and you quoted is how i see the difference between a persons path through religion and someones that is not through religion. It was more of a theory than a statement that was linked to an example.

Oh, ok.

But how do you know that religion is misleading ppl from the truth and encourages belief in tings that are not real?

intell wrote:

Oh, ok. But how do you know that religion is misleading ppl from the truth and encourages belief in tings that are not real?

The point im going to make may or maynot upsets some ppl, and it is the bluntest one i can think of:

Religion tells people that god is almight and that he exsists, but how do they know, have these people seen him, talked to him, had a cup of coffee with him (sorry for being sarcastic). But the point im trying to make is that there is no god. people around the world believeing in god through religion, when the truth is that he isn't real. so they are infact being misslead, lied to, and when the day actual comes when the truth comes out, then these people around the world who have been believeing in this man, creature, person, whoever or whatever, will be saying to themselves what the hell.

Religion is a guide

God is a word

The Choice is yours

starcrow wrote:

Religion is a guide God is a word The Choice is yours

religion is a false guide, and yes ur right choice is yours. weather you choose to believe in religion or not

Everyone believes in something. Everyone is hungry for something. Everyone, deep inside, has a need.

That what you believe in, what satisfies your hunger and supplies your need is your religion.

i dont have a religion. what i believe in are my own beliefs and no one elses.

What makes you think that a religion requires you to share it with others... free your mind, man...

religion is for the masses, man!. how many religions do you know of that only contain 1 or even two members, that was a stupid statment to make. and my mind is free thankyou very much, because i dont allow myself to be controled my systems of control like religion

You are talking about a church, not a religion.

But I think you only want to stick on your "I have no religion" position, no matter what. Maybe you are proud of this statement...

... and we are all influenced by something and someone...

well let us settel this here then, you have your opion and i have mine. But what i also think as well is that you also have your beliefs just like me. neither of us is wrong it is just that i think and believe differently to you.

Neo1 wrote:

well let us settel this here then, you have your opion and i have mine. But what i also think as well is that you also have your beliefs just like me. neither of us is wrong it is just that i think and believe differently to you.

This post sounds like relativism. If this is true (that you are both right) then no one's opinion really matters because truth is only what we percieve it to be - relative.

It is true that you may have a different opinion and it is good to respect others opinions, but to simply imply that both of you are right is a lazy cop out.

This is an example of some of the negative effects of postmodernism on our culture. Logically, you both can't be right. Either there is a God or there isn't. In the end we will find out.

And by the way, just imagine if there is a God and he offers eternal life to those who believe in him. Then those of us who haven't believed in him would be in trouble. All I am saying is that it would be a good idea to check out the evidence that leans toward their being a God and him sending his Son. It would just seem like a logical thing to do. Something to think about.

CaptPostMod wrote:

The concept of OM or AUM is different from the concept of Attman and Anattman.

Capt, can you elaborate on that?

Neo1 wrote:

But the point im trying to make is that there is no god.

You believe this. But how can you KNOW?

eddyrocket wrote:

just imagine if there is a God and he offers eternal life to those who believe in him. Then those of us who haven't believed in him would be in trouble.

The Christian paradox of choice and choicelessness...
I am not a Christian, still.... do you believe that fear can serve as the ground for a truly Christian attitude? Shouldn't it rather be love?

eddyrocket wrote:

It is true that you may have a different opinion and it is good to respect others opinions, but to simply imply that both of you are right is a lazy cop out.

it is not a cop out by me saying that in the end we are both right. cause we are. i think i am rigth just as starcrow thinks he/she is right.

neo1 wrote:

it is not a cop out by me saying that in the end we are both right. cause we are. i think i am rigth just as starcrow thinks he/she is right.

The cop out comes with the content to leave it at that. Great philosophy. It allows you to be content with your version of truth without ever having to do any investigation. Everyone is right and there's no reason to even give ear to anything different from your current belief systems. Nice!

tozy wrote:

do you believe that fear can serve as the ground for a truly Christian attitude? Shouldn't it rather be love?

I don't think that's what Eddy is saying. He is pointing to logical consequences for being wrong. If you spent a considerable portion of your life denying the existnce of someone, how awkward a position that would put the both of you if you should ever meet. And how might you reflect on that period of ignorance? Not fondly I bet.

That's all Eddy was saying. Not 'believe in God or else you're doomed if you are wrong'. But you knew what he meant.

tozy wrote:

CaptPostMod wrote: The concept of OM or AUM is different from the concept of Attman and Anattman. Capt, can you elaborate on that?

Sure. Om is the primordial noise of creation. If you accept string theory, then Om would be the noise the vibrating strings make. It is the basic building block of all things. In a Western sense, I think it would be similar to the nature of the Force in Star Wars. Om is at the base of all things. It is a very metaphysical concept.

Anattman is not. Om is a seperation. If all things can be united by a single force, then there is something that makes them different than that force. Anattman is that there is no force. There is no basic kernel which we all share. It is every part of every part that shares every part. All is all. If there is nothing, it is part of all because it is. This is more an intellectual model for viewing reality then it is a metaphysical truth (though it can be that too). All is all. There's no simpler way to state that. There is no kernel that runs through things. I think it was Nichiren who wrote something along the lines that no law of physics or nature could ever defy the laws of Buddha-nature because Buddha-nature is the laws of nature and physics. If something is true it is Buddha-nature. If something is false, then it is also Buddha-nature because it still is. All things that are are, illusion or not. Realizing this, you step beyond beginnings and endings, reality and illusion, attainment and attaining. Om is a permanent thing at the heart of all things. Anattman is not. It is no-thing, no-Om, no-God, no-truth, just all.

intell wrote:

Now one could argue that there is no self anymore there is just original mind. But we're back to the question, What is inherently flawed about a universal mind that causes it to have something I can only describe as a split personality disorder (no offense intended), thinking that it is both animate and inanimate things distinct in nature? Or, if our concept of reality is a delusion, what is the cause? I'm really interested in the answer.

Sorry, responded to tozy and missed this from intell. The seperation comes from thought and dependent origination. Once existence started existing (cause), then there was a point at which it existed and one at which it did not (effect). This then sets in motion an endless series of cause and effects which cause both unity and seperation. But when there is no-thing, there is no seperation. Buddhism specifically avoids creation mythology in most denominations. It is seen as pointless to speculate on the nature of creation when there was no creation and nothing created.

intell wrote:

iow. If I am actually you then what you do to me really either benefits or harms you (or original mind). So then compassion for me is no longer selfless but selfish.

Exactly. That's the whole point. The end of suffering and the fostering of compassion. If I understand that in hurting you I hurt myself it also follows that in helping you I help myself. This is the great Bodhisattva way. Whether it is selfless or selfish only matter if one still has not realized that self and others are no different.

The butterfly effect is another good sci-fi idea that delves into these similiar concepts.

edit: OH! I forgot the most important part. Yes, Buddhism is absolutely a crutch. It can be helpful, but it is a seperation and delusion like anything else. There's a very oft repeated and important Buddhist saying-

If on the road to enlightenment, you encounter the Buddha. Kill the Buddha!

Quote:

It can be helpful, but it is a seperation and delusion like anything else.

iow. calling an illusion an illusion is an illusion.

Quote:

If on the road to enlightenment, you encounter the Buddha. Kill the Buddha!

* clicks a desert eagle *

Oops. I just found this dupl. post, too.

*contents deleted*