Ataraxia wrote:Ok,lets say I agree this paranormal phenomina should be considered within my 'something' for the arguments sake.This still doesn't speak to the question of the 3rd party(the monks selecting).The 14th dalai Lama doesn't say,"yes I recognise those objects" but rather the monks say "yes you do recognise those objects".Can you not see the logical problem here.The 3rd party is recognising phenomina not even the man himself can recognise.
Well at the time they do the object recognition thing, the prospective Dalai Lama is a child. In some of these cases the child does mention knowing something or somebody. But of course since he's a child, it's not unequivocal evidence.
As I mentioned before, it is quite possible that (for example) the current Dalai Lama does remember more than he says. I could swear that there have been occasions when he's said as much but since I can't supply references we can safely ignore this. Unlike Alex Berzin, I believe the Dalai Lama's function is primarily diplomatic & it would not be very useful for him to get too mysterioso about reincarnation & other topics that might alienate the western supporters of Tibet. In recent years he has even started discouraging western people from 'converting' to Buddhism, saying they should practice the religions of their own culture. This seems like hardcore diplomacy to me. I mention this to support the idea that we don't actually know what his experience or memory is.
It's a clear implication that the monks are 'superior' to the chosen one. As David posited above,why on earth would they then worship such an inferior person?
The idea that the Dalai Lama is the most enlightened person around is not the way it works. Dalai Lamas are not born enlightened; they need to go through the whole process in each lifetime. So yes, the adult Lamas who locate the new Dalai Lama are superior to him in the sense that they are accomplished in realization & he is a child. They don't worship him. There may be many Tibetans who do worship him but this is an aspect of Tibetan culture rather than of Tibetan Buddhism as a spiritual practice.
This 'proofing' you've used to refute that this alleged paranormal phenomina is outside my 'something' can be used to 'prove 'anything.Including the the Christian God.It's Bertrand Russels teapot all over again,its the Flying Spaghetti monster.
Sorry. I didn't mean I was offering the fact that it's not impossible as proof that it's true.
Whether I believe in re-incarnation or not is not required for this thought experiment.I'm using their understand of re-incarnation to ascertain whether the're logically chosing the correct one.
Their understanding of reincarnation is not based on logic.
If it is not tangible but exists[/b],then how do they recognize it?They can't.Tangibility=recognizability.Using your question,it doesn't really matter wether it exists to them,they can't recognise it anyway!
If tangible=able to be recognized then yeah, no kidding, if it's able to be recognized they can recognize it & if it's not, they can't. But the recognition of a new Dalai Lama doesn't depend on the wisdom of the people looking for him. First they have the predictions from the old Dalai Lama about the circumstances of his rebirth, then they have all their 'tests' & divinations. I'm not arguing that this is a valid method, by the way. It may just be their best guess & Dalai Lamas are created rather than born, in the same way bees make a queen by feeding an ordinary bee royal jelly. This is not a big problem if we dispense with the idea that the Dalai Lama is supposed to be 'more enlightened' than everybody else (whatever that means).
The question of "can it be recognized?".If it is something recognizable, then it has to be considered within the realms of cause and effect.
Yes of course.
So you agree with me.
Sure. I have no beef against cause & effect.
But how does alleged recognition of a child as being in some way connected with the dead Dalai Lama violate cause & effect?
.The answer to that question would be long and tedious. so for expediency and some laziness on my part I'll instead quote David Quinn(yeah an appeal to authority,guilty as charged.)It is important to broaden oneâ€™s conception of causation until it includes all phenomena in the Universe.
if you don't accept this a valid answer thats fair enough.
Well I don't see how the quote from David is an argument, but perhaps I am dense. How is my concept of cause & effect too narrow?
My impression is that the subtext of this discussion is a materialist assumption that anything that cannot be detected & measured by scientific means must necessarily be nonsense. Actually we don't know what happens after we die. People who are sure that when the brain dies, the mind dies are not in a superior logical position to people who say a soul or something continues.