the Cycle

I classify myself as a philosophical Buddhism. As a matter of fact. I never attempt to conceal my skeptism about religion as a social existence. On occasions, my doubts extend to my belief in karma, cyclic existence, heaven, hell etc. It's not that I have a little angelic form of me whispering into my left ear and a devil boy form of me whispering into the right ear. It's not a battle between right or wrong, but rather the doubts are a tool of cross-examination on truth. Let's say, there hasn't been a scientific measure to verify the existence of cyclic existence, although karma is indirectly supported by many scientific theories - think the butterfly effect, the domino effect...So is it true that the law of cause and effect, translated into the Buddhist language "karma law", is the ultimate drive of the cyclic wheel of life? Moreover, does life have a spiritual element that over time can be separated from the body that hosts it? The second question is fundamental, to which many religions more or less came to a similar conclusion. The Christians talk about oneself being a vessel upon which God bestows life and ever-flowing love. The Taos hotly pursue a celestial life after the mundane human life. Oh, and the swirling sufis have a beautiful poem of lives manifested death after death (Sorry Sufis, I forgot the name of the poem.) The Buddhists take it to another level. They don't want a hellish life or a heavenly life - they want to get the hell out of there.

Just because science, a thing so many civilised and educated human beings rely on solely as a means to interpret our existence, has not yet proven the matter of after life, it doesn't mean that one should reject the idea at all. In fact, wherever it turns, we are alerted to the limitations of its perspective from which we see the world. This goes without saying that the evolution of science itself is a process of objecting its old self, old knowledge, concept or theories. The development of science in its numerous disciplines is almost like a metamorphosis. If we don't happen to have already known what a caterpillar is to become, we wouldn't have guessed correctly the result of its next stage of life. Tell me that we are not looking at science like a clueless child at a caterpillar. And to be honest, this makes me totally comfortable with the fact that after-life is not yet verified and conclude that despite the lack of scientific endorsement, after-life is not only possible but probable. You want to ask why?

First, ask why the people in lab coats can do all sorts of fantastic things with all sorts of embryo cells, but haven't been able to create a new species of life, say, a chimera? Or why is that a body died from a repairable wound cannot reclaim its life after the severed tissues and nerves are reconnected? It's almost like a point-break situation. Something slips out of the house and the house is empty, or empty of it. (So convince me that there isn't a probability that life exists in a separable, spiritual form.) The next question then is "Where does it go from here?" and then, "What affects where it is going?" This is a question to which answers vary. And I, having arrived at a premature conclusion , cannot share it with you now because it's ime to pick up my law readings...

Go Minax, go...要做大律师吗？