buddhism Essay -- essays research papers

Zen; Buddhism's trek through history, politics, and America Zen, or Zenno (as it is known by the Japanese word from which it derives), is the most common form of Buddhism practiced in the world today. All types of people from intellectuals to celebrities refer to themselves as Buddhist, but despite its popularity today in America, it has had a long history throughout the world. "Here none think of wealth or fame, All talk of right and wrong is quelled. In Autumn I rake the leaf-banked stream, In spring attend the nightingale. Who dares approach the lion's Mountain cave? Cold, robust, A Zen-person through and through, I let the spring breeze enter at the gate." -Daigu (1584-1669, Rinzai) (DailyZen) Zen Buddhism's history begins where Buddhism's history began. It originated on the continent of Asia around 500 B.C.. The founder of Buddhism; Gotama Siddhattha, a former price in what is now known as India, is known as "The Buddha," which roughly translates to " o ne who is awake" (Merit 102). "At the age of twenty-nine, deeply troubled by the suffering he saw around him, he renounced his privileged life to seek understanding. After six years of struggling as an ascetic he finally achieved enlightenment at age thirty-five" (DailyZen). In 475 A.D. a Buddhist teacher, Bodhidharma, traveled to China and introduced the teachings of Buddha there. In China Buddhism mixed with Taoism, and the result was the Ch'an School of Buddhism, and from there Ch'an spread to Japan where it is called Zen Buddhism (DailyZen). The Buddhist Religion has always been passed down from teacher to student, and through the use of books and sacred works such as the Malind-panha, Pali Tipitaka, and the Pitaka series (Merit 102). These books and teachers taught students of the religion the philosophies of the practice. They taught of Satori, or enlightenment, which is the main goal of the Zen Buddhist, which is to achieve peace of mind despite external turmoi l ( Archer ninety-six). One way to reach enlightenment is through meditation. Zaren is sitting in meditative absorption as the shortest yet most steep way to reaching enlightenment (Zen 233). The Buddhists stressed the fact that existence is painful. They believed that suffering was a result of false human attachments to things that were impertinent, "including the attachment to the false notion o... ...inly Christian population of the time. It also came as a shock because women were welcomed to join. America was in a chaotic state during the 1960s. The country was basically torn apart, and highly tormented by the controversy over the Vietnam war. People were breached by the traditional American ideals of serving the country, and heroic nationalism, and new ideologies and beliefs systems. More Americans were open to try different things. The Hippie era, trials of free love, and experimenting with fresh cultural aspects, all probably led to a sort of flourishing of spiritual awareness. As the cultures' curiosity and confusion led to a blossoming of new religious forms, or at least new to the Americana. Zen Buddhism was among these ideas, that was grasped at by Americans seeking new spiritual enlightenment. Zen went from India to China to Japan to Western civilization, and made a variable impact in each place it traveled to. The ideas, customs, beliefs, and philosophies of the Zen Buddhist religion spread globally due to its universality. From politics to poets, Zen impacts all aspects of life, and forms ethics through guideline, and basic philosophies of human nature and spirit.

Sample Article Opinions :: essays research papers

Fillion, P. (2002) Postmodern Planning. pg. 265-285 Quote: â€Å"Planning discourse is becoming increasingly disconnected from implementation.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  This quote is from the first paragraph of the article by Pierre Fillion. As a matter of fact, it is the first sentence he uses. It is a very strong sentence that sets up his article beautifully. While after reading his article, I do not agree with all of his statements or points, but this one, his main one, I do agree with strongly. Pierre lays out why he believes that planning discourse is becoming increasingly disconnected from implementation. He states that the public is becoming more involved in the planning aspect, many different ways, including advocacy groups, community based groups, and public general meetings. He also states that it is becoming harder to implement the plans that they do come up with. I believe that this is happening for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, the main reason that the implementation aspect is lacking is because almost all areas of the western world have become obsessed with financial stability as well as have become qu ite fiscally conscious. Therefore getting the financing for these plans has become increasingly difficult over the past so many years. Cities, individuals, businesses, provinces, states and governments cannot freely spend on items just because someone or a group wants something planned. People are becoming more conservative, and therefore less is being accomplished now, than once was. Another reason, that I believe that things are not always accomplished is because of the planning that goes into them. I feel that people have become more conscientious of the advocacy groups and public groups that want things planning and accomplished a certain way. With the rise in public input, it is possible that the planned projects lose some credibility, and therefore when it gets to the implementation stage, those involved are less open to proceeding with the project. These two things, the publics’ opinion and the financial timidness, have led to a gap to be created between the two, and w ith each passing year, that gap seems to be widening. Qadeer, M.A. (1997) Pluralistic planning for multicultural cities. Pg. 481-494 Quote: â€Å"The cultural and racial diversity of citizens bears on the planning process in three ways.† Following this quote the article goes on to explain in three ways how these three things affect the planning process. Without reading those three paragraphs, I am going to give my opinion on how I believe that in three ways the topic affects the planning process.

Assessment Portfolio and Analysis Essay

The purpose of assessment. b.Your plan for including assessment when working with children. c.How you can use assessment to document children’s work. d.How you will use children’s interests and ideas when assessing. Assessment Portfolio and Analysis The mission is to help children/students to better themselves and be able to finish any task that they have started to the fullest. The goal is to determine where the child is at developmentally/educationally. I will learn where the child stands, what they already know and how farther they can be pushed to achieving our goal. According to the text, â€Å"Assessment is the process of gathering information about children from several forms of evidence, then organizing and interpreting that information† (Wortham, S.C. (2012). I know that it is the teacher’s responsibility to test the students, from that the teacher will be able to understand where each individual child stands. My plan for including assessment when working with children is to be able to carefully be assess the child and take my time. I will make accurate decisions regarding the child and will include the child’s parents as well for their input. One way that I can use assessment to document the child’s work is through portfolio. According to teacher.scholastic.com, â€Å"These purposeful collections of children’s work illustrate their efforts, progress, and achievements over time. Teachers and children can compile the collections together from work completed in the classroom. As they talk together about the child’s interests and progress, they develop new activities for the child to focus on.† (http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/assessment/perfassess.htm)

Change through Events in a Novel Essay

In many novels, characters experience first hand the challenges they must go through as the transition from who they portrayed to be in the beginning as opposed to how they change their personalities, actions, and life style in the end. In the novel, The Guardian by Nicholas Sparks, the author uses certain events from the novel to change the characters personalities and ways of life. This is demonstrated through the main characters Julie Barenson who changes from a nice, loving woman to an afraid and unstable woman because she finds out Richard is stalking her and Richard Franklin who changes from nice and an at times jealous person, to a crazy, possessive stalker because Julie doesn’t love him. By exploring these two characters, it is evident that change in characters through different events in the novel is depicted through how they change their lives, ways of action and personalities. During the early years of Julie’s life, she has many problems and is not stable. Julie’s mother is an alcoholic and they live in a trailer. Her father moves away to Minnesota when she is two year old. She runs away when she is sixteen and lives on the street until she meets Jim, who takes her to Swansboro and marries her. At the beginning of the novel, the author portrays Julie as a woman who has been through a lot, but does Ankoma-Mensa 2 not let that stop her from being a nice, loving person. Julie also moves on after Jim’s death, because it was a hard time for her, with regards to her past: â€Å"Now when she thought of Jim, she remembered him with a smile, thankful that he’d been part of her life.† (Sparks 1) She always helps other and does the best she can to be respectful and sincere to other characters. Unfortunately, Julie does not stay so nice and caring throughout the whole novel. This transition from being nice to becoming a scared is demonstrated when she realizes that Richard is stalking her. Julie becomes very afraid after she is informed that Richard is stalking her and she starts to act paranoid: â€Å"So she did again and come up with the conclusion that Richard wasn’t lurking by. But is still didn’t help. She began to hyperventilate.† (442) Even though Richard deserves the insults he receives from Julie, the reader does not expect her to try and hurt him in such means ways: â€Å"‘I don’t want to talk to you.’ She said, hating her plaintive tone. ‘Why can’t you get that through your head?'†(448) Julie ,herself, does not like how she is sounding and the way she is acting but she feels that the only way to get Richard to leave her alone, she has to be rude to him. Julie transforms from her regular personality beca use of what Richard is doing. Not only is Julie’s transformation in personality a big difference, but Richard’s transformation is even larger than expected. Richard, whose real name is Robert Bonham, is a man from Cleveland and is Julie’s boyfriend at the beginning of the novel. Richard, also, has been through a lot in his life just like Julie has. His father and mother were alcoholics, his mother is beat every night from his father and he hates his parents. Richard struggles because his parents die and he goes from house to house in search of a Ankoma-Mensa 3 family. In the beginning of the novel, the author portrays Richard as a caring and at times manipulative man, who has been through many struggles in his life, but unalike Julie, Richard allows his past to resurface in his future. Richard’s mothers’ struggles get to him and he allows them to interfere with his concept of how he and Julie should live: â€Å"If Julie stayed, he knew she would grow weak, just as his mother had grown weak. And in time, there would be nothing to respect.† (175) Richard feels that if Julie stays in the country, she will end up like his mother and he despises his mother. As well Richards manipulations are demonstrated when he tries to get Julie to feel guilty because she did not wear his necklace: † Manipulated, as though he’d wanted her to promise that she’d always start wearing the locket to work again and that she would feel guilty that she hadn’t.† (143) Even though Richard personality is not perfect, he worsens near the end of the novel. Richard becomes obsessive and the reader finds out that he is a murderer. Richard kills his mom; dad, wife and the real man named Richard Franklin to steal his identity. As well, the reader finds out the Richard is abusive because he hits his wife: â€Å"‘stop acting crazy’ ‘What did you say?’ ‘Ow†¦let me go†¦you’re hurting me†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ ‘WHAT DID YOU SAY?’ ‘Ow†¦please†¦Ow!'†(432) Richard hits his wife because he is a controlling person and wants her to do what he says. He also feels that he is the best thing for Julie even thought he is not and treats all women as if they are his mother, who is beaten by her father, and tries to control or change them to prevent them from his mother’s way of life: â€Å"Just like his mother. The victim. Always the victim.† (175) Richard becomes a stalker when Julie dumps him and starts to date Mike. Richard is goes crazy and Ankoma-Mensa 4 convinces himself that Julie’s hatred is love: â€Å"Yes, he knows she cared for him, for weren’t anger and love opposite sides of the same coin? Great anger wasn’t possible without great love†¦and she’d been so angry† (433) Richard uses his mothers life as a bad example of how he wants to live not knowing that he is causing the women he loves to be like his mother: subject to abuse by a controlling man. Richard changes from how he was at the beginning of the book because Julie does not love him, farther demonstrating the change is characters through events in a novel. Like in many novels, The Guardian uses events in the novel to demonstrate how each character changes their personalities, actions and ways of life. This is demonstrated through Julie’s transformation from a nice, loving, stable woman to an afraid, hate-filled, vulnerable woman because Richard is stalking her, and as well, through Richard’s transformation from a nice, controlling at times man to a sick, twisted, crazy and controlling man because Julie doesn’t love him. Characters in novels either change for better or for worst depending of the events that have taken place. In The Guardian’s case, one of the characters transform into a hate-filled ,scornful person, whereas the other transforms into a evil criminal because the events were not positive ,but were negative.

Creation Science Essay

Creation science is a controversial nature study founded on principle that the existence of the cosmos is as a result of supernatural causes (Browning, 1997). Also referred to as scientific creationism, the study combines creation concepts mainly from the Christian and Islamic understanding with scientific discoveries. The creation accounts described in the book of Genesis from the Holy Bible and the Qur’an are supported by â€Å"Creation Science† programs taught in some universities. These programs attempt to show how scientific discoveries are more consistent with creation accounts than they are with evolutionary theories suggested by earlier scientists such as Darwin (Browning, 1997). While such creation science concepts sometimes create some controversies, there should be no such problems and science and faith should be allowed to mingle. The most astounding problem is that science relies on empiricism while faith depends on believing on the unseen. However, science should be understood as man’s endeavors in understanding his universe and it is not unscientific to believe in deliberate creation of life. There are a number of evidences in the Holy Bible that can be used to study the modern Earth. For instance, the Great Flood in the story of Noah provides an understanding to the geological features in today’s Earth (Browning, 1997). In general, creation science should be supported to realize a large number of scientists supporting the paradigm that God creatively designed and formed the Earth while applying the scientific methods in gaining a deeper understanding to the question on the origin of life and the universe. The fields such as biblical archaeology and chronology, cosmology and philosophy of science are all the product of creation science and thus the thinking of creation science should be upheld to find answers to some of the questions pure science and pure religion fail to address. Reference: Browning, J. D (1997). Noah’s Ark: A feasibility study. Retrieved July 21, 2010 from http://mall. turnpike. net/C/cs/ark/allnotes. doc

Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest Essay

1. What does the play say about marriage? The play says many things about marriage.   One is that marriage can be quite complicated when there is deceit even if the feelings involved are genuine.   Another is that there are so many trivial things that society considers â€Å"important† that disregards the true meaning of marriage.   Another is that parental consent and money still play an important role in matrimony. 2. What is the significance of the names? The word Earnest means sincere. However, the play showed how that sincerity is downplayed by the many trivial things that society expects from individuals.   Ms. Prism’s name is also significant because it was her character that finally shed light on the true background of Jack – who later became truly Earnest. 3. Suggest some of the things that Wilde is poking fun at in this play. Wilde made fun of the way women can be so assuming of relationships as can be seen with Cecily’s account of how she and Algy became engaged and how Gwendolyn fled from her mother to go to Jack.   The author also made fun of the way society can be deceived by many aspects of a person beside his true self (e.g. names and money).   This was especially evident in the way the name Earnest became so important that Algy and Jack had wanted to be re-baptized with it. Marriage was also funny because it gave too much importance on money and family background before it considers the true person. 4. What is your favorite character and why? I loved the character of Ms. Prism because at first she seemed to be only a minor character but in the end, the story actually centered on her misgivings.

Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death Essay

) Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death (20 marks). 26/01/03 One initial problem with studying the belief in life after death is that there are a vast number of theories stating what they believe ‘life after death’ actually is. Therefore in order to effectively ascertain arguments for and against this idea, it is necessary to deal with each individual theory separately. Plato’s theory of dualism1 argues that it is the mind that determines our personality and that the body is an outer shelf for the real self. The body is contingent and therefore destined for decay but the mind is associated with the higher realities such as truth, goodness and justice and is immortal. Plato believed that the soul continues after death. Plato said that there was a perfect idea/form for everything in existence. The idea of the thing is prior to the individual instance of it and so it must be more real. Ideas are not physical things so they must belong to a spiritual realm of reality, which is more real than the material realm. According to Plato the telos2 of the body is to be in the physical world and receive sense-impressions whereas the telos of the soul is to travel into the realm of heavenly ideas and understand them. Before our immortal souls became imprisoned in our bodies they were acquainted with these heavenly ideas and so our soul wants to break free of our bodies and spend eternity in contemplation of the true, the beautiful and the good. In this realm the thinking being would survive without the physical body, the body would not survive death, but the soul – the real essence of the person would continue. Plato terms this ‘soul’ as our personality identity. According to Davies, although the arguments may seem ingenious, in actual fact they are severely misguided. Things may have opposites, but it does not follow that if something comes to be, there is something which is its opposite from which it comes. Nor does it follow that if something ceases to be, something comes to be which is opposite to something existing earlier. Davies adds that Plato’s second argument does not work because it mistakenly assumes that if all who have lived come to be dead, it follows that everyone has come to be dead. It is true that someone who has gone to sleep has not awoken but it is not true that nobody is awake.3 Aristotle developed a similar theory of dualism for life after death, he considered the ‘soul’ to be the part of the body that gives it life. It is what turns the physical form into a living organism of its particular type. Therefore a human will have a human soul. Aristotle defines the body and soul as being inseparable. The soul develops the person’s skills, character or temper, but it cannot survive death. When the body dies, the soul ceases to exist, as they are one. This would appear to be materialistic at first but Aristotle believed that the body and soul were different. Human beings have a soul or self that is capable of intellectual life. Only humans can reflect on feelings and sensations and grasp ‘universals’. In this way we come to understand eternal truths and in doing so we move on to achieve a higher level of existence. It seems evident here that Aristotle’s argument is guilty of confusing spiritual fulfilment that occurs on an entirely physical level, involving emotions and cognitions with life after death and so it seems we must reject his argument. Bernard Williams raised concerns that the separation of body and mind raises questions for discussion. Williams argues that memories are not a good guide to identity. Memories and personality can be fabricated and personal identity cannot be proved through mental activity alone. He believed that identity comes from physical characteristics as well. Personal identity depends on the way in which we recognise each other and without our bodies we cannot be fully identified. However, one could counter this by saying that the recognition of each other is irrelevant as it is more the manner within which we recognise ourselves that is important. Furthermore, Williams speaks of recognition on an entirely materialistic level as it is merely the physical person they are identifying. Given that one might say that we make judgements through the form of our physical selves and not our souls to recognise something non-physical by this means does not seem rational. Williams also highlights the causal affects between body and mind. For example the use of alcohol and drugs affects cognitions and changes personality.4 We can argue against this by distinguishing between the mind – a non-physical entity, and the brain – a physical entity by which the mind operates. Modern science has shown links between the mind and the brain. Surgeons are now capable of splitting the brain and effectively creating two minds. It is possible to argue that dualism was only invented as a philosophy as a means of explaining what, at that time science could not understand. Finally there is the argument that if the mind is a non-physical object how can it cause anything to happen in the purely materialist realm of the world. Arguments have been put forward to counter this – some philosophers for example have highlighted parts of the brain by which they believe the mind connects to the physical realm. However, modern science has once again defeated this argument and shown how they serve other purposes. It seems that the argument was little more than unfounded opinion and guesswork. Rene Descartes is also greatly associated with dualistic arguments for life after death. He states that if human beings are not to be identified with their bodies, then the view that they can survive death seems a plausible one. We normally think of death as the end of a persons bodily life. But if people are distinct from their bodies, then the fact that their bodies die does not entail that they die. Another modern advocate of a distinction between persons and their bodies is Richard Swinburne. According to him it is coherent that a person can exist without a body. Swinburne asserts that if X (the body) can be without Y (the mind), then X and Y are distinct. Since I can be without my body, it follows, says Swinburne, that I am not my body. Through Descartes’ and Swinburne’s arguments it becomes entirely possible to attack the premise of a dualistic interpretation of life after death by attacking the premise of dualism itself. On the other hand, although our language seems to involve subscribing to a distinction between body and mind this does not show that they are separate things. Furthermore we often talk about ourselves as being distinct from our minds also, so it seems this argument does not work. There are a number of arguments, however, which work in favour of this approach. For one thing, there is the fact that we often naturally talk about our real selves as though they were distinct from our bodies. Another factor is that we also have privileged access to many of our thoughts. We can think about something without displaying that fact by our bodily behaviour. However what does the fact that we have privileged access to many of our thoughts actually tell us. It certainly does not mean that only I can know what I am thinking as it is entirely possible for someone else to know what you are thinking by an observational analysis of your physical responses and even for them to be thinking the same thing at the same time. Unfortunately this counter-argument does not work either as although it is entirely possible for someone to work out roughly what you are thinking, they will never be 100% accurate, nor will they ever be able to think with the perceptions, cognitions and interpretations which you do. Another argument put forward by Descartes to uphold dualism is his statement: â€Å"I know I exist†. He also states that he can say that he is essentially a thinking thing. Therefore this perception of the physical seems to imply that there is something else apart from the body with regard to being a human.5 However in this case it is possible to argue that appearance may be deceptive, as sometimes our senses can be mistaken regarding the physical world. Why should we be an exception? For example a drunk man may perceive himself to be sober when actually this is not the case. However, we may point out that this analogy is at fault because if a man is drunk then his perception and mind have been distorted by alcohol and has little to do with appearance as the appearance which has been perceived is not a truthful one. Unfortunately this line of argument seems to fail when we ask why should drunkenness be any different to other distortions of perception which may occur naturally without our awareness. In fairness, it is not. Furthermore, Immanuel Kant would argue with Descartes over this issue stating that – the human mind imposes order on our experiences and in reality we do not know with certainty the source of the sensations that the mind organises. An alternative to dualism is materialism or behaviourism, which is the view that so called mental events are really physical events occurring to physical objects. Emotion for instance is just the interacting of chemicals in our physical body. Gilbert Ryle (1949) dismissed dualism as a theory about ‘a ghost in a machine’. That is the ghost of the mind inside the machine of the body. Ryle called the notion that the body and mind are separate entities calling it a category mistake. He uses the analogy of an overseas visitor who is shown around a collegiate university town and sees the college, libraries, and so forth, only at the end of it to ask â€Å"but where is the university†. Failing to appreciate that the university is not something separate from its constituent parts; failing to see the ‘wood for the trees’ as some may say†¦ Ryle advocated something known as philosophical behaviourism – all mental events are really physical events interpreted in a mental way. Thus our mind is not a separate entity but just a term meaning what we do with our physical bodies. Some critics have suggested that this does not explain all mental behaviour. If we are for example wishing for something, this does not mean we are behaving in a particular way. You could counter this by saying that the number of subconscious thoughts we have are numerous, and they often can manifest themselves through behaviour without our knowledge, who is to say that conscious thoughts are any different. In fact it seems highly likely that they are not. Ryle’s behaviourist theory can be assigned to a mode of thought known as materialism. There are two forms of this – hard materialism and soft materialism. Hard materialism refers to a mode of thought that does not accept that an individuals characteristics are anything more than physical ones. Any idea of consciousness is nothing more than brain activity. The mind cannot be separated from the body. When the body dies, then so does the brain. Soft materialists do not accept that all characteristics are physical ones. Consciousness is more than just a brain process. The mind and body are related to and do not act independently of each other, but the body often displays inner emotions. A physical symptom may be caused by something that is troubling the mind. There is nothing that we can do independent of our bodies and therefore our personal identity must involve our bodies. They believe that when the physical body dies, so does the mind. These views seem particularly strong as to oppose them would be to suggest that there are bodiless people capable of being defined as human beings, when surely having a body is part of the definition of being human. Not all materialists accept that death is the end, instead, some believe that there is life after death. As the physical body cannot be separated from the ‘soul’ (mind), there is only one way this could happen and that is if the whole body continues after death. The survival would have to involve the resurrection of the body. This belief is known as re-creation theory and is held by Christians. One flaw with this theory is that if we survive as both body and mind, then what state is the body in – are we old/young, sick/healthy etc. The question ultimately refers to the identification of the ‘self’ and who we really are. If a person was born with a terminal illness it would not seem just for them to be resurrected as a person with such an astounding deficiency, yet would they not so, it would not be truly them. The only plausible way around this would be to resort to a dualist style of argument separating the body from the soul. Unfortunately however this is not cohesive with creation theory. The theory also does not take into account personal development, if we are resurrected as a younger person of ourselves then it ignores part of what it is to be human – the ability to develop and change in order to achieve self-actualisation. The development of the self is not compatible with the arguments stationary grounding. Therefore it would seem necessary that we be resurrected in the form that we were just before we died. Yet if the person had contracted a painful illness or indeed was in a coma then this would seem non-sensical. The reason for this being that if (as in this world) suffering and pain is random and universal then the whole point of an afterlife (to reward and punish) is negated. Furthermore if a person were to be ‘cured’ as it were, then they would have had a very real aspect of their character and development removed from them (as undoubtedly the ailment would have changed them as a person, however small the change) and so it would not be the actual person that was carried on. John Hick would counter-argue and state that it would be entirely plausible that the dead could exist after death as themselves, if an exact replica of them were to appear. This replica could be identified as being the same person who had died, and therefore, according to Hick, would be the same person. If this replica will be complete with all the characteristics and memories of the individual then it would be the same person re-created. It is possible to counter-argue this point and ask the question: Would this replica not merely be an exact copy of ourselves but not really us. The individual atoms of which we are composed would differ to those of our copy. We are contingent beings and given that there must be some gap in time in between us ceasing to be and our replica coming to be, then surely it cannot be the same person. Hindu and Buddhist traditions hold the view that we have lived many lives before and that on death we will be reborn again. The condition of our present lives are believed to be a direct consequence of our previous lives. According to Verdic tradition, there is an ultimate reality – Brahman. Everything else is maya – a temporary and finite illusion. Within maya there is a limitless number of souls who all seek union with Brahman. The theory of karma and rebirth is concerned with the soul’s journey from illusion to reality6. The soul continues from life to life, being reincarnated, until it finds the eternal truth; after this the soul is not reborn any more and is united with Brahman. Thus when an individual dies, their mental aspects live on and the next birth is determined by how good or bad their karma was in the last life. Evidence frequently cited for this is the fact that many people seem able to remember fragments of their previous lives, sometime under hypnotic regression. However, although evidence for recall can sometimes be damning, why would it seem to suggest evidence for reincarnation, it could be interpreted as a number of things. Possibly, you could argue that we are all merely cells in one great organism and that these people have just happened to find interconnections between cells. If we removed the cultural-related feasibility of reincarnation then this argument would appear no less likely. In addition, it is possible that there is a rational explanation for this apparent ‘recall’. Firstly, the individual might simply be recalling information gained in childhood and attributing it to a past life. Secondly there could be a ‘cultural’ gene that passes down information from our ancestors. Or thirdly, that some memories may result from psychological problems and be manifested as memories of earlier lives when in fact they are suppressed events from this life. These three explanations seem relatively weak and unable to explain the multitude of ‘regressions’ which have taken place. David Hume would call into validity the nature of the people who make and verify these claims, stating that either they are religious and seek to prove their beliefs to be true, or are mentally unbalanced and cannot be relied upon to make accurate claims. Furthermore, hypnosis is a very unreliable source of evidence. Numerous psychologists have conducted studies showing that not only are only 33% of the population susceptible to in-depth hypnosis, with 33% being not at all susceptible, but also that false memory syndrome can occur quite regularly under hypnosis, where the patient wrongly ‘remembers’ an event to have occurred even though it actually has not.7 Although this argument does successfully call into doubt the reliability of hypnosis, the majority of other physical explanations seem relatively weak and fail to affectively account for something – which in all fairness we cannot explain. Yet the fact that we cannot remember why we know something should not provide proof that we have had previous lives, moreover that there are things which we know that transcend our sensory experiences. Philosophically, however, there are problems with this style of argument. Human beings seem to require three things to make up their individuality – body, memory and psychological patterns (personal identity). If we apply these to reincarnation, when we are reborn, continuity is lost. If we cannot remember our previous lives then our memory is lost. With only psychological pattern remaining it would be impossible to determine if one person is the rebirth of another since, unless they displayed identical characteristics, all we could say is that reincarnated people are ‘similar’ to those who went before. Therefore given that reincarnation argues not for life after death, just for life per se, it seems irrelevant to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of its arguments. Another argument for life after death arises through ‘spiritualism’ and communications between the spirit world and the living is regarded as evidence of life after death. Many ‘mediums’ have passed on messages from departed spirits that contain accurate information which was previously unknown to the medium. However, investigations of a number of mediums have proved that they are frauds. Others appear to be genuine and are able to demonstrate that something extraordinary is happening when they pass on messages. This could be communication with departed spirits or some form of telepathic access to the minds of the living. Once again however, the question is introduced as to whether we can trust the testimony of another human being without actually witnessing the occurrence for ourselves. Given the frequency of unexplainable occurrences such as these they do seem be a reasonable argument for life after death. There have been a number of ‘sightings’ of dead people, which also constitute as arguments for life after death. Dr Deepak Chopra stated that bodies are comprised of energy. They may appear to be solid, but the truth is that they are in reality just an impulse of energy. When an individual dies, the energy field may retain his/her image and may be perceived as a ‘ghost’. He considered the ghost to be an individual’s consciousness manifesting itself through the remaining energy. However there are a number of explanations for the phenomenon including hoaxes or elaborate tricks, which could convince people they had seen a ghost whereas in actuality they had not. Secondly there is the ‘stone tape’ theory which suggests that just as a magnetic tape is able to record events and play them back, in certain conditions, stones will record events and ‘play them back’ when the same conditions are present. Finally there is the fact that ghosts could be the result of a case of mistaken identity, or the power of suggestion could lead to the mistaken belief that a ghost had been sighted. The ‘stone tape theory’ is quite ludicrous as it takes upon a scientific argument to prove a theory when the main differentiation between science and philosophy is empirical verification. In this case there is no evidence to support the theory. Aside from this theory, the other two seem quite believable in that they are quite feasible and explain the frequency and variety of times such an occurrence has taken place. Furthermore, the fact that a bundle of energy continues to exist, showing something that once did exist does not mean that life after death exists. Indeed if the energy is little more than a reflection of what once was, it fails as an argument intended to prove what know is. In addition can a bundle of energy really be constituted as ‘living’, if not then once again the argument is invalid. The argument of near-death experiences also puts forward an argument for life after death. Dr. Raymond Moody has studied many cases of people who had, to all intents and purposes died (during a surgical operation) and subsequently been resuscitated. Many claimed similar experiences – floating out of their bodies, travelling down a tunnel where they emerged into a world of light. However, these accounts have problems. Firstly, these accounts may be merely the result of people dreaming or experiencing some subconscious phenomena. Given the clarity of these dreams the first account seems unlikely, the second more plausible yet still is devoid of scientific evidence to support. Some have suggested that a lack of oxygen to the brain resulted in this hallucination. The main problem once again is verification in that it is impossible for us to experience the phenomena ourselves and judge its reliability accordingly. In addition, the types of experiences are often largely dependent on culture and society and so whether or not they are genuine or merely a manifestation of what the person may expect to see, or in the case of non-believers, expects not to see. One can counter-argue this however by saying that God may not actually be a fixed being but more of an interpersonal one varying from person to person and so the culture argument may not be relevant. The arguments discussed here are numerous, but generally do not hold a great deal of weight. The philosophical arguments are flawed and in places not logical, and the empirical arguments are generally unverifiable. However, given the sheer number of empirical arguments and the fact that some of them (near death experiences and regression to previous lives for example) are apparently otherwise unexplainable – we must realise that it is highly plausible if not possible that life after death does occur in some form or another. Bibliography: Religious studies, by Sarah K. Tyler and Gordon Reid. Philosophy of religion for A level by Neil Lockyer, Anne Jordan and Edwin Tate. An introduction to the philosophy of religion, by Brian Davies. The puzzle of God by Peter Vardy Religious Education notes from R.S. conference 1 â€Å"Any view that postulates two kinds of thing in some domain is dualist; contrasting views according to which there is only one kind of thing are monistic† – Simon Blackburn Oxford Dictionary of philosophy pg 248 2 Greek word meaning ‘purpose’ 3 The Puzzle of God – Peter Vardy 4 The puzzle of God – Peter Vardy 5 Religious Education notes from R.S. conference 6 Also known as a state of ‘Nirvana’. 7 The puzzle of God – Peter Vardy