That’s not true: the Buddha saw men and women as equal. It’s only the sects that place males over females.

Buddhism does not suggest the world is a stage for our spiritual quest, it just makes the point that whilst we’re here, we may as well cultivate this thing we call ‘karuna’ or compassion in the deepest sense. It does teach enlightenment is possible through detachment to wordly things, but even a child can see that attachment does cause suffering. It’s not a bad thing to want to give it up. Most western Buddhists do not believe in rebirth, either.

But those conclusions don’t follow from the arguments you’ve made for them.

Consider, for example, that a non-physical mind might be bound to some proportional amount of contiguous physical substrate, leading to all of the conditions you describe.

E.g. if you split the brain, perhaps the non-physical mind must split too. Changing the physical substrate might easily change the non-physical overlay if they are tied together in some way. And destroying a part of the brain might destroy part of the embedded non-physical mind.

That’s the problem with the hypothesis of a non-physical mind. Being effectively supernatural, it’s non-falsifiable by natural means. That doesn’t mean it might not be true… but it’s not something we can reasonably study with any hope of a rational conclusion. It is, indeed, a matter of faith, almost by definition.

Though I would like to preface what I say by mentioning that I don’t claim an absolute certainty about anything… I would change my views with new information and I always try to be open-minded.

–Stephen, could you comment on what it means to you personally to have a “non-physical mind” and why you deny its existence?–

To have a non-physical mind would be to have a mind that is irreducible to matter. A mind that is separate from matter and somehow relates to it. That our mind isn’t just a product of nature (neurons firing in the brain, etc) but there is a “ghost in the machine”..

I have a view which is called ucchedavada by Buddhists. I think that the mind ends with death.

The reasons I think there is no non-physical mind:
1) Modern psychology and neuroscience.
a) Split brain experiments.
When we separate the two hemispheres of the brain, the two halves seem to have separate consciousnesses. One side can know things that the other doesn’t (in fact, one subject had half a brain believe in god and the other half not!). If the mind were non-physical, this doesn’t make sense.
b) When we change the brain, we change the mind. Lucretius (an ancient materialist) argued this a long time ago by pointing out that our consciousness becomes different as we get older — if the mind were made of spirit, there wouldn’t be any reason for this.
c) Parts of our consciousness end when their corresponding brain sections are destroyed. It seems likely that if we destroyed the whole brain, all of consciousness would end.

And other reasons.. But I’m bad at brevity and I’ve taken up enough space. :)

“Buddha did not deny [an all-powerful god]”

Yes, Buddha did deny the truth of belief in Creator gods (issara-nimmana-vadam — I include pali jargon in case you wanna google it – since there is a lot of contradictory info out there).
He said that all beings arise from conditions, none are eternal and all are subject to the law of karma (ie not omnipotent).

“But in my limited skill i will tell it is not about a soul.”

I know (I get anatta). I deny the Buddhist idea that there is a non-physical mind.
I believe the mind is what the brain does. :-)

Here’s a good website IMO that has many orthodox Buddhist articles and a large part of the Pali scriptures:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/

What is the abstract value of some amount of this life-force/energy/whatever it is escaping from the wheel of karma?

Frankly, even if you assume it’s a “true” view of the world, that seems like a counterproductive goal. Whatever life force/karma/whatever there is out there must already be spread pretty darn thin when you consider the vastly larger number of humans that are around today. Why reduce the amount?

Buddha did not deny it. He said there maybe such beings yet they are not important to us humans (also the same about the age and scale of the universe) as we are the only present solution to the problems we face and to depend on these beings is only temporary. Such is the action of Karma where each moment is but a frame in a larger reel which does not have an start or end, which can never be repeated or reproduced.

And the Buddha taught the higher beings (say gods) need a person to yield or believe in them to have any power over them and a awakened human is more in control of his/hers life than any god or demon can have influence or curse, posses, help them.

Reincarnation, which seems to be one of the most compelling reasons for many to refuse Buddhism is a largely misinterpreted concept. I have seen some very good explanations in above posts and i hope a wiser person than me could elaborate on this to you. But in my limited skill i will tell it is not about a soul. there is no soul. no one awareness which is reborn. It is more like an ever changing candle which upon reaching its end, the flame can be transferred to a new candle yet neither the candle or the flame are the same as was the previous candle in all its moments. it is only momentary and transitory.

also about miracles and illusions i will tell briefly a Jataka tale my dad told me once.
One day the Buddha was waiting for a row boat to cross a river with that lands king. He was waiting patiently till the boat came. A passing by ascetic told he did not need to wait for the boat and in a haughty manner flew over to the other side. Many bystanders were impressed and talked why the great Buddha did not go so and the ascetic was superior. The king asked the Buddha why he did not fly and in answer the Buddha asked a bystander how much the boat ride would cost. The he told the king that was how much the ascetics magic was worth and calmly waited for the boat to arrive.

so what the morale was that these miracles can be done by many (in his time) who have developed their disciplines but nirvana, kindness and humility are not so easy to achieve. i hope this is correct.

Namo thassa bhagawato arahato samma sambuddhassa

Yes, most Buddhists believe that (the self is a continuum).
Except that for the interpretation you mention to be consistent with Buddhism, the continuum would have to continue postmortem.
Buddha says in the Tipitaka that those who believe the mind ends with the body have wrong view.

You will notice a rather conservative stance on abortion amongst many traditional Buddhists because of this idea. They view all forms of life as invaluable. Even zygotes :P

“But his goal wasn’t to teach people how to attain ataraxia (peace of mind). Instead, Buddha taught the end of being reborn (nirvana).”

As difficult as it is to talk about nirvana, isn’t one interpretation that the “rebirth” is a moment-to-moment re-creation of self that ceases now and forever more?

A lot of question marks, but regardless of the spiritual practice, I think it’s high time we recognized and respected many metaphorical truths as being no less truthful or important than literal truths. I think our lives would be richer for it.

Ideas such as reincarnation and resurrection are metaphorical for many practitioners. And many of the tenents of the world’s great religions can be considered in a metaphorical light — which doesn’t make them less true.

This thread is, in essence, the microcosm of the shift in religious debate since the so-called Enlightenment: that all religions and/or spiritual practices conform to a set of “laws” or “facts,” in parallel to the so-called “facts” produced by science. It’s a hopeless argument.

That said, I’ve been a Methodist, Catholic, Episcopalian, and now Zen Buddhist. It’s been a long and winding road, but for my personal spiritual practice, Zen feels like the most congenial way for me to express and practice my own spirituality. It is a practice that continually asks questions and doesn’t pretend to know what’s going on. As my own teacher once said, “How could we know?” And I know of no other practice that urges its students to “Kill the Buddha.”

“Siddhartha Guatama, the man, worked out a method for lifelong mental health, which was so effective at relieving suffering that people celebrated him as a “Buddha”, or enlightened one.”

I disagree. He was considered a doctor of sorts but the things he set out to cure was people’s bondage to Samsara (continual rebirth). This is the whole of the Buddha’s teaching..

Westerners tend to interpret Buddha as if he were Epicurus.. But his goal wasn’t to teach people how to attain ataraxia (peace of mind). Instead, Buddha taught the end of being reborn (nirvana).

BTW, here’s a cool website with most of the Tipitaka (Buddhist Scripture).
http://www.accesstoinsight.org