Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I just want to point out that it seems to me the Buddha rebukes Sati in MN 38 for his idea of consciousness as a static entity (i.e., "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another") — explaining that consciousness arises in dependence on certain causes and condition — but not the idea of rebirth in general.
I agree. It's clear that in MN38 Buddha is not rebuking Sati for a belief in rebirth, but for thinking it's the same consciousness which continues.
But, when this is the case, what is transferred is more than just karma; it is something that can be called me. And what - in Buddhist terms – would be that “me’?
It's the mind that goes on because it is driven by its karma.
''As far as arguments go, appeal to authority isn't a very strong one in general. ''
^^ well listening to somebody who was so say, liberated and enlightened might help a little don't you think?
It depends on what you mean. When it come to following the advice of an enlightened and liberated individual in the context of your practice, I'd say yes. When it comes to debate and making rational arguments for or against a specific point, however, I don't think appeal to authority is a strong argument. In fact, it's a fallacy if used as: (1) Person A said x is true; (2) Person A is an authority on the subject; therefore, x is true. When used that way, the validity of a statement rests not on its own logical coherence or truth, but on the on the status of the person who says it's true as an 'authority.' That's not to say that you can't use the opinion of others more knowledgeable than your self to help explain a point or bolster your argument, but you can't rely on their status as an authority alone to prove that a statement is true.
Person A is an authority on the subject; therefore, x is true. When used that way, the validity of a statement rests not on its own logical coherence or truth, but on the on the status of the person who says its true as an 'authority.' That's not to say that you can't use the opinion of others more knowledgeable than your self to help explain a point or bolster your argument, but you can't rely on their status as an authority alone to prove that a statement is true.
I would take this even further. Because this is attempting to absorb and display a truth based on views, on the strength of the pedestal the authority is on, the trust in their accurate perceptions... that it leads into greater delusion, even when their observations are correct. It creates the pattern of habitation of ideas, rather than clear observation.
I agree. It's clear that in MN38 Buddha is not rebuking Sati for a belief in rebirth, but for thinking it's the same consciousness which continues.
Sorry, guys, but I need clarification here. If it's not the same consciousness that continues, what is it that gets reborn? Where does the Buddha explain that?(Did I miss something? :-/ )
Sorry, guys, but I need clarification here. If it's not the same consciousness that continues, what is it that gets reborn? Where does the Buddha explain that?(Did I miss something? :-/ )
From the Theravadin point of view (or at least from the point of view of those in Theravada who accept the idea of postmortem rebirth), rebirth is viewed as the continuation of a process—nothing 'remains,' nothing 'transmigrates,' there are merely fleeting phenomena that condition other fleeting phenomena in the interdependent process we call life.
One way to look at it is that a casual process can be self-sustaining, with causes creating effects, and effect acting as causes, creating feedback loops. And if you admit the possibility of immaterial causes and not just material ones (assuming that a clear distinction between the two can even be made), then the continuation of said process isn't limited by or to a single material body. And if you believe Bertrand Russell, the more we understand about matter (i.e., energy), the more the word itself becomes "no more than a conventional shorthand for stating causal laws concerning events" (An Outline of Philosophy).
Here, consciousness isn't seen as a static things going from life to life, but simply as one link or event in a complex causal chain, i.e., moments of consciousness arising and ceasing in rapid succession, with the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditioning the arising of a new consciousness due to the presence of craving (kind of like 'spooky action at a distance' where two entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously, even over great distances). It's almost better to think of it as a transmission of information rather than the transmigration of some thing.
Thus, in Buddhism, there can theoretically be continuity between lives without having to posit some type of permanent, unchanging consciousness or soul that travels from life to life. That's why the Pali term vinnanasota or 'stream of consciousness' is often used to describe the flow of conscious events, even when presented within the context of rebirth. (Similarly with terms like bhavangasota (stream of becoming), found in Snp 3.12, and samvattanikamvinnanam (evolving consciousness), found in MN 106.)
Unfortunately, there are no suttas that give a detailed explanation of this process, and the detailed workings of this process are to be found in the Abhidhamma and Pali commentaries. While many people reject the Abhidhamma and commentaries as reliable sources of information regarding what the Buddha taught, I don't think the views of the Buddha and the ancient commentators such as Buddhaghosa are necessarily mutually exclusive.
I personally believe in rebirth but not reincarnation and I feel no need to try and prove it or disprove it, because doing either is simply not possible. So any effort to do either is a exercise in futility. Therefore, all "arguments" in favor of or against, are kinda pointless because it is all just speculation with no possibility of any valid conclusions. IMO
I personally believe in rebirth but not reincarnation and I feel no need to try and prove it or disprove it, because doing either is simply not possible. So any effort to do either is a exercise in futility. Therefore, all "arguments" in favor of or against, are kinda pointless because it is all just speculation with no possibility of any valid conclusions. IMO
I agree. But there are ways to disprove (although not completely) certain ideas just based on logic itself.
So when someone says they know reincarnation is true because they know it from experience a simple refutation is adding all experiences reported by people. When you get to people claiming they speak with fairies I believe makes a great logical case as to why that should be invalid.
So yea, you cant prove/disprove any of it, but by inquiring and asking questions you can get to certain points where logic is abandoned.
Thank you, Jason, I'm getting a better understanding of that view, now. It's a very subtle thing, then, this "consciousness" that isn't a "static thing". I guess we'll never know for sure what the Buddha had in mind. It seems to boil down to how one interprets MN38, and whether one accepts later commentaries.
So when someone says they know reincarnation is true because they know it from experience a simple refutation is adding all experiences reported by people. When you get to people claiming they speak with fairies I believe makes a great logical case as to why that should be invalid.
I'm not sure this holds, really. Just because you can find people who speak with fairies, doesn't mean the sometimes extensively studied cases of children recalling past lives aren't valid.
I personally believe in rebirth but not reincarnation and I feel no need to try and prove it or disprove it, because doing either is simply not possible. So any effort to do either is a exercise in futility. Therefore, all "arguments" in favor of or against, are kinda pointless because it is all just speculation with no possibility of any valid conclusions. IMO
I agree. But there are ways to disprove (although not completely) certain ideas just based on logic itself.
So when someone says they know reincarnation is true because they know it from experience a simple refutation is adding all experiences reported by people.
Why is there a need to refute it to begin with? If someone wants to believe that then why not just let them believe that? It's not causing them, or anyone else, any harm. The same could be said about God. So what if someone believes in God, or supernatural heaven realms, etc, etc? Why do people feel the need to go out and "invalidate" what other people believe?
Thank you, Jason, I'm getting a better understanding of that view, now. It's a very subtle thing, then, this "consciousness" that isn't a "static thing". I guess we'll never know for sure what the Buddha had in mind. It seems to boil down to how one interprets MN38, and whether one accepts later commentaries.
So when someone says they know reincarnation is true because they know it from experience a simple refutation is adding all experiences reported by people. When you get to people claiming they speak with fairies I believe makes a great logical case as to why that should be invalid.
I'm not sure this holds, really. Just because you can find people who speak with fairies, doesn't mean the sometimes extensively studied cases of children recalling past lives aren't valid.
Its not quite what I am saying. I am saying that if you go by the assumption that personal experience is strong evidence for something you have to take all personal experience into consideration. There are people who have seen other human beings turn, for a brief second, into a reptilian. They claim it is a alien race that walks among us. Its not just a few people, research David Icke. A lot of people believe him. These people swear that they have seen this happen. So why do you discount them ( I am assuming you do) ? Arnt their personal experience just as valid ?
So if you look at the broad "craziness" of personal experience I think one should come to the conclusion that it is truly unreliable. Either that or you accept all personal experience as plausible.
Its not quite what I am saying. I am saying that if you go by the assumption that personal experience is strong evidence for something you have to take all personal experience into consideration. There are people who have seen other human beings turn, for a brief second, into a reptilian. These people swear that they have seen this happen. So why do you discount them ( I am assuming you do) ? Arnt their personal experience just as valid ?
I think the point about people having past life experiences is not about "proof". It means that, due to the nature of the experience, they, themselves, are convinced. They leave it up to others to decide for themselves, in my experience. There is no solid "proof" of anything resembling a scientific nature, unless you accept the results of the studies of children recalling past lives.
This is an interesting point you raise. It reminds me of accounts of "shape-shifting" by indigenous peoples. Many San (Kalahari Bushmen) swear to seeing this or that healer turn into a lion. What do we make of this? Cultural belief projected onto various situations? Sometimes I suspend judgment. Thanks, I'll check out your video.
I didn't believe my past life memory when it came up, because I'd never believed in rebirth/reincarnation. So my rational mind tried to explain away what was happening. Years later, I got confirmation of my experience from a different source. All I can say is, it's not something believable until it happens to you. (And even then, it might not be believable, though it'll get your attention!) Some people choose to believe, I've noticed on this site, because their analysis leads them to find rebirth reasonable. Whatever works for people is fine, IMO. This is part of human diversity, isn't it? Rebirth or no rebirth is a highly individual matter.
Person A is an authority on the subject; therefore, x is true. When used that way, the validity of a statement rests not on its own logical coherence or truth, but on the on the status of the person who says its true as an 'authority.' That's not to say that you can't use the opinion of others more knowledgeable than your self to help explain a point or bolster your argument, but you can't rely on their status as an authority alone to prove that a statement is true.
I would take this even further. Because this is attempting to absorb and display a truth based on views, on the strength of the pedestal the authority is on, the trust in their accurate perceptions... that it leads into greater delusion, even when their observations are correct. It creates the pattern of habitation of ideas, rather than clear observation.
In that case, just consider it as the opinion of the person who quoted it & judge it for what it is worth.
Comments
P
One way to look at it is that a casual process can be self-sustaining, with causes creating effects, and effect acting as causes, creating feedback loops. And if you admit the possibility of immaterial causes and not just material ones (assuming that a clear distinction between the two can even be made), then the continuation of said process isn't limited by or to a single material body. And if you believe Bertrand Russell, the more we understand about matter (i.e., energy), the more the word itself becomes "no more than a conventional shorthand for stating causal laws concerning events" (An Outline of Philosophy).
Here, consciousness isn't seen as a static things going from life to life, but simply as one link or event in a complex causal chain, i.e., moments of consciousness arising and ceasing in rapid succession, with the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditioning the arising of a new consciousness due to the presence of craving (kind of like 'spooky action at a distance' where two entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously, even over great distances). It's almost better to think of it as a transmission of information rather than the transmigration of some thing.
Thus, in Buddhism, there can theoretically be continuity between lives without having to posit some type of permanent, unchanging consciousness or soul that travels from life to life. That's why the Pali term vinnanasota or 'stream of consciousness' is often used to describe the flow of conscious events, even when presented within the context of rebirth. (Similarly with terms like bhavangasota (stream of becoming), found in Snp 3.12, and samvattanikamvinnanam (evolving consciousness), found in MN 106.)
Unfortunately, there are no suttas that give a detailed explanation of this process, and the detailed workings of this process are to be found in the Abhidhamma and Pali commentaries. While many people reject the Abhidhamma and commentaries as reliable sources of information regarding what the Buddha taught, I don't think the views of the Buddha and the ancient commentators such as Buddhaghosa are necessarily mutually exclusive.
So when someone says they know reincarnation is true because they know it from experience a simple refutation is adding all experiences reported by people. When you get to people claiming they speak with fairies I believe makes a great logical case as to why that should be invalid.
So yea, you cant prove/disprove any of it, but by inquiring and asking questions you can get to certain points where logic is abandoned.
So if you look at the broad "craziness" of personal experience I think one should come to the conclusion that it is truly unreliable. Either that or you accept all personal experience as plausible.
This is an interesting point you raise. It reminds me of accounts of "shape-shifting" by indigenous peoples. Many San (Kalahari Bushmen) swear to seeing this or that healer turn into a lion. What do we make of this? Cultural belief projected onto various situations? Sometimes I suspend judgment. Thanks, I'll check out your video.
who quoted it & judge it for what it is worth.
Logic has its limit. Based on logic, the earth was flat. Based on logic,
germs did not exist.