December 21, 2013 12:23 AM GMT
Just a few comments on what constitutes proof .
In whose eyes-the scientists or the girl next door?
Pauline Smith suggested there is no proof of reincarnation nor the after-life but there is no proof that they are non-existent. I am afraid I get rather testy on this subject because it is so obvious that people don't actually take a balanced view of the evidence either for or against, including scientists who often suggest via careful semantics that their theorys are fact.
It was a also stated that eastern religions views on reinicarnation, death etc are based on belief.
That is not true.
The Dalai Lamma 's doctine is based on knowledge and memory of previous lives. So are many experiences of Shamans , and those who have experienced near-death experiences.
The fact that theses experiences can be explained away does not mean they they are not real.It is also wrong to term Buddhism a religion - it isn't, though the ignorance of the press and pseudo-academics has convinced people otherwise . Buddhism is a way of being
Proof Of Heaven is a book written by a scientist - Eben Alexander, who initially very much against evidence of the afterlife is now very adamant that Heaven is real.
The book documents his own experiences of N.D.E. and successfully challenges all scientific attempts at explaining away.
This is only one example of documented evidence of the survival of consciousness after death.
I have my own but I will not waste peoples time divulging them as I do not have a scientific background which seems in this modern world to be taken as a guarantee of honesty and integrity.
My views on that assumption you would not be safe to print.
My point is that if you don't look for proof of something then when someone offers it to you secondhand ( unless an oh so honest and obviously knowledgeable scientist ) it will automatically be dismissed out of hand.
I have one thing to say to people who demand proof of the afterlife - do what many others have done and seek it out through personal experience.
If you don't have the will or tenacity to do that at least acknowledge that those who have done so have a right to claim a greater knowledge of the subject than those who simply say nonsense because they are not given the easy option of the instant knowledge that others have spent many years acquiring.You would not ask a scientist to prove his knowledge but take it for granted that it was genuine.
One further point- Pauline asked using a reference to the Guardian "Can reincarnation be reconciled with population growth " The answer is yes and if the Guardian had spoken to the Dalai Llama, they would have been given the answer and by including it in their article produced a far more balanced article as a result
Ed Halliwells knowledge of Buddism is also extremely limited which is evident by his trite remarks.
In closing if anyone is genuinely interested in the explanation I am quite prepared to give it and it has nothing to do with reincarnating as insects-that is Hinduism ,not Buddhism
This post was edited by Deleted Member at December 21, 2013 12:50 AM GMT