Animal Rebirth

fivebells

And you just accept it???

Once you stop taking refuge in logical fallacies like non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, beating up on straw men, and appeal to authority, you eventually find yourself occasionally forced to accept arguments with uncomfortable conclusions, posited by people who make you uncomfortable. Small price to pay for a clearer understanding of the world, though.

Presumably he gave a verifiable sutra reference. Unless you think he has a time machine and went back and changed the original version of the sutra himself, the veracity of the citation is independent of how much of a poopyhead you think Dhatu is.

DhammaDhatu

...how much of a poopyhead you think Dhatu is.

More "poop", from the Bhikkhu Vinaya

Conversation that does not deal with the Dhamma, though, is termed "animal talk" (tiracchāna-kathā) in the Canon, and there are several passages (e.g., the Vibhaṅgas to Pc 21 & 85; Mv.V.6.3-4) that criticize group-of-six bhikkhus for engaging in animal talk: worldly talk about "kings, robbers, and ministers of state (politics); armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; also philosophical discussions of the past and future (this is how the Sub-commentary to Pc 85 explains 'tales of diversity'), the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.ch08-1.html

compassionate_warrior

And you just accept it???

Once you stop taking refuge in logical fallacies like non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, beating up on straw men, and appeal to authority, you eventually find yourself occasionally forced to accept arguments with uncomfortable conclusions, posited by people who make you uncomfortable. Small price to pay for a clearer understanding of the world, though.

Presumably he gave a verifiable sutra reference. Unless you think he has a time machine and went back and changed the original version of the sutra himself, the veracity of the citation is independent of how much of a poopyhead you think Dhatu is.

I don't think hermitwin's question was about DD. I think the question was: do we believe the Buddha just because he's the Buddha? Do we believe that animals can conceptualize the 4 Noble Truths? This question has come up a number of times in the last few days. Fivebells says it's not to be taken literally. It's up to each of us to decide as we see fit.

fivebells

It's up to each of us to decide as we see fit.

Discussing the rational basis of those decisions is usually highly productive, though.

DhammaDhatu

Do we believe that animals can conceptualize the 4 Noble Truths?

Sure animals can realise the 4 Noble Truths.

I was once an animal. As a teenager & young adult, I had no sexual morals. To lack morals & wisdom and to blindly follow instinctual drives is the meaning of being an "animal". Then one day, I saw clearly the causes of suffering and, changing my behaviour accordingly, I was reborn human (humane) via realising the Four Noble Truths (in part).

Or there is a well-known Australian/Tibetan nun named Robina Courtin. She used to be a radical lesbian femininist seperatist (whatever that means). How stupid is that, to believe one sex can live completely separate from the other sex. To be stupid is the meaning of "animal birth". Then one day, obviously Robina was reborn human by realising the Four Noble Truths.

Of course we believe animals can realise the Four Noble Truths.

Angulimala was an animal that realised the Four Noble Truths for arahantship.

But many humans, especially those lost in moral crusades, never realise the Four Noble Truths. So, exactly as the Buddha taught, when something happens in their life, such as sickness, aging, death, loss, separation, etc, they are reborn in hell (dukkha).

The cartoon below, naturally Thai rather than Tibetan, depicts Angulimala according to Dhamma language. It can be understood by simply watching the footage. Words are not required.

Dakini

And you just accept it???

. He taught that realising the 4 Nobles is how animals progress up to human rebirth.

I don't accept it literally. I meant I was blown away to see that the Buddha taught this, since most of the Buddha's teachings are so logical, almost "scientific" one might say. It shook up my view of Buddhism. But there are some opinions here that the teachings about the realms are to be taken as meditative states, and DD explains his interpretation of the teaching about animals and the 4 Noble Truths. Whether or not the realms, etc. was meant to be taken literally or symbolically, or both...I'm not going to get into that argument. It does sound very helpful, though, to take the teachings symbolically, from what 5bells and DD say. I'm sure there are plenty of traditional practitioners around Asia who take them literally. I guess...do whatever works for you. :-/

zidangus

I find it easy to accept logically that there is a possibility that animals can understand suffering and how to avoid it on some level. In fact most animals will learn quite quickly that some actions bring suffering and some actions bring reward, for example dogs can be taught what is good by their owner and what is bad by their owner by rewarding and punishment, so to speak. This is just a basic example, but it does show the possibility that animals can understand on some level what is good for them and what brings suffering.
At the end of the day all beings have lives; they love their lives and do not wish to be in suffering, this I am quite sure animals understand.

Next I have no problem whatsoever in accepting the possibility that the realms of rebirth include literally rebirth as an animal, to me it seems logical. I mean are humans so different from animals ? is the life force of an animal so different from the life force of a human ? For me to have the view that humans cannot be reborn as animals suggests that people feel that they are a lot superior to animals. Is the world or even universe created specifically for humans ? I think not, animals are just as important to this world as humans are. Moreover, If Buddha did not think this way, then why did he constantly warn against the bringing of harm and/or death to any living being, why did he not just say human being ?

Is not the highest ideal of Buddhism to practice and work toward the permanent end to the suffering of all living beings, not just humans ?

Buddhist teachings are littered with references to animals and being reborn as an animal, For example, it is written that in one of Buddha's former lives he was reborn as a deer-king.
In the story he offers his own life for that of a pregnant doe who is about to give birth. In another previous lifetime, the Buddha sacrificed his own life to feed a starving tiger and her two cubs, who were trapped in the snow. He reasoned that it would be better to save three lives than to merely preserve his own. It is better to lose one's own life than to kill another being.
Are these not evidence that animal life is just as important as human life in Buddhism ?

With Metta

fivebells

I find it easy to accept logically that there is a possibility that animals can understand suffering and how to avoid it on some level. In fact most animals will learn quite quickly that some actions bring suffering and some actions bring reward, for example dogs can be taught what is good by their owner and what is bad by their owner by rewarding and punishment, so to speak. This is just a basic example, but it does show the possibility that animals can understand on some level what is good for them and what brings suffering.

Yes, but this such a way of life is simply driven by reaction to the three poisons. It's exactly what Buddhist practice is supposed to bring to an end. The animal realm is so-called precisely because animals relate to pleasure and pain in this instinctive way.

Next I have no problem whatsoever in accepting the possibility that the realms of rebirth include literally rebirth as an animal, to me it seems logical.

To most Christians, it seems logical that there should be a heaven. Not sure what your point is...

I mean are humans so different from animals ? is the life force of an animal so different from the life force of a human ?

Non sequitur. How does this similarity relate to the issue of post-mortem transigration between human and animal form?

For me to have the view that humans cannot be reborn as animals suggests that people feel that they are a lot superior to animals.

Another non sequitur. There are plenty of reasons to think that humans aren't reborn as animals which have nothing to do with the relative superiority of one form or the other. (Whatever such superiority would mean...)

I think not, animals are just as important to this world as humans are.

What do you mean? Important in what context?

Moreover, If Buddha did not think this way, then why did he constantly warn against the bringing of harm and/or death to any living being, why did he not just say human being ?

"It's called compassion. Look it up."

Is not the highest ideal of Buddhism to practice and work toward the permanent end to the suffering of all living beings, not just humans ?

How does this relate to the question of post-mortem transmigration?

Buddhist teachings are littered with references to animals and being reborn as an animal...

So?

There was some very sloppy thinking in your comment. Are you really just about to finish Uni? Maybe you should stay a bit longer, and take a course which teaches critical thinking? It's a little frightening that someone who thinks that way could seriously consider teaching nuclear physics.

hermitwin

DD, for someone who quotes the scripture so often,
it is very surprising that you can make this type
of mistake.
Read the scripture in its context.
Animals are incapable of controlling their destiny.
I suggest you consult a teacher/monk/scholar you
respect.

DhammaDhatu

What mistake?

What monk?

fivebells

Please delete (never mind, DD asked the question first.)

DhammaDhatu

I suggest you consult a teacher/monk/scholar..

Now rebirth in the realm of beasts is stupidity. Whenever one is inexcusably stupid about something: stupid in not knowing that Dhamma and nibbāna are desirable, stupid in not daring to come into contact with or get close to Buddhism, stupid in believing that if one became interested in Dhamma or Buddhism it would make one old-fashioned and odd. That is how children see it, and their parents too. They try to pull back and move far away from Dhamma and religion. This is stupidity. Regardless of what sort of stupidity it is, it amounts to rebirth as an animal. As soon as stupidity arises and overwhelms one, one becomes an animal. One is a beast by spontaneous rebirth, by mental rebirth. This is the second Woeful State.

http://what-buddha-taught.net/Books5/Buddhadassa_Bhikkhu_Buddha_Dhamma_for_University_Students.pdf

Now to the realm of beasts (tiracchna). Birth as a beast means in everyday language actual physical birth as a pig, a dog, or some other actual animal, Rebirth after death as some kind of lower animal is the everyday meaning of rebirth into the realm of the beasts. In Dhamma language, it has a different meaning. When one is stupid, just like a dumb animal, then at that moment one is born into the realm of beasts. It happens right here and now. One may be born as a beast many times over in a single day. So in Dhamma language, birth as a beast means stupidity.

http://what-buddha-taught.net/Books5/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Two_Kinds_of_Language.htm

You can see this in the animal kingdom. We are quite predatory creatures ourselves; we think we are civilised but we have a really bloody history — literally. It is just filled with endless slaughters and justification for all kinds of iniquities against other human beings — not to mention animals — and it is all because of this basic ignorance, this unreflecting human mind, that tells us to annihilate what is in our way.

However, with reflection we are changing that; we are transcending that basic instinctual, animal pattern. We are not just being law-abiding puppets of society, afraid to kill because we are afraid of being punished.

http://what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Ajahn_Sumedho_The_Four_Noble_Truths.htm

We all have these primordial drives as human beings. They are common to all of us. They are not a personal identity. Our refuge is in awareness rather than in judging these energies that we're experiencing. Of course, our religious form is celibate, so when sexual energies arise, we're aware of them, and don't act on them. They arise and cease just like everything else. Anger and hatred arise and cease. When the conditions for anger arise, it's like this; likewise fear, the primal emotion of the animal realm.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books9/Ajahn_Sumedho_Personality.htm

http://www.ajahnchah.org/pdf/everything_is_teaching_us.pdf

kataz

I meditated on it a bit the other day, and I've definitely come around to fivebells' idea of rebirth as a metaphorical animal state. Gautama Buddha used metaphors quite a bit in his teachings, and he altered his teachings to fit each audience he spoke to, so living in ancient India it really makes sense he would teach with the metaphor of rebirth, and people then just took it literally as they always had. Anyway, here's my thought process on this whole metaphor thing. This hypothetically completely eliminates the need (in my mind) for any kind of rebirth or reincarnation at all in Buddhist philosophy (though I don't deny the continued possibility of it):

We have these six states of rebirth, in descending order (I do believe):

Enlightened One
Heavenly Being
Human
Animal
Hungry Ghost
Hell Being

Now the majority of the population, according to the metaphorical sense of these six states of rebirth, would be in the Animal stage. They haven't produced enough negative karma to send themselves lower into the hungry ghost or hell-being stage, but have yet to comprehend the four noble truths, so they blindly follow worldly pleasures, swaddled in ignorance (like an animal is not necessarily at fault for bad deeds they commit, they are simply too ignorant to know any better).

Now, the hungry-ghosts I see as people who have successfully gotten some of the larger, more sinful worldly pleasures, producing a sufficient amount of attachment and probably some negative karma, so that they are constantly greedy for more and more of what they already have access too. Really, a hungry ghost could be any greedy, material-obsessed person.

Then hell-being is that type of person who has committed such evil deeds and created so much negative karma in their lives that they've obliterated at the least all of their peace of mind, and probably many of their close interpersonal relationships. They would be tortured every single day, not by physical demons lashing them with whips, but with their own inner demons.

Humans would simply be those people that have started on the path to enlightenment, and have recognized the four noble truths, and I see heavenly beings as devout monks or lay practitioners that have journeyed a significant way towards enlightenment but haven't reached full Buddhahood.

In this case, a Buddha would simply be someone who has fully achieved enlightenment and has no chance of backsliding down into one of the previous rebirths (freeing themselves from rebirth, thus reaching Nirvana ).

Anyway, this is a kind of self epiphany I had today while meditating on it. Really though, the symbolism or reality of rebirth isn't really important: the central teachings are simply the four noble truths and eightfold path, and that any bad or good deeds you commit will come back to you, if not in a supernatural, order of the universe kind of way, then simply in a "you do bad, you feel guilty and destroy your peace of mind" kind of way. This flexibility in interpretation is what makes Buddhism so beautiful, because no matter what you believe you can pretty much agree on the truth of the central teachings of the four noble truths and eightfold path.

kataz

Btw, I apologize for the really long post. The last paragraph is the only really important part :P

DhammaDhatu

I suggest you consult a teacher/monk/scholar..

Qualitatively, each of the six mental afflictions engenders a certain type of birth: hatred leads to a hell realm, greed to a hungry ghost realm, stupidity to an animal realm, desirous attachment to the human condition, jeaousy to the jealous god realm, and pride to the divine states . . .

http://baharna.com/karma/kbudd.htm

That those born in the West are advanced human beings and for them to learn Eastern philosophy is to descend into the animal realm? That’s what it sounds like. But it’s a good question; some people might think like that. And I agree that there could be somebody who says, “I’m fed up with the Western way of life. I can’t stand it any longer. I’m going East.” This person is too extreme, and his rejecting the West and adopting Eastern ideas in this way could be seen as a return to the animal realm.

But another Westerner might think, “I have everything. I’m well educated, I have a wife and family, a good job, a house, a car and plenty of money, but I’m still not satisfied. When I was a kid, I thought if I had all this I’d be happy, but I’m not. Money is not everything. I need to support my mind.” He knows the entire Western experience from beginning to end but he’s still not satisfied and wants to learn about the mind. So, where can he go? He knows that Western psychologists cannot explain the nature of the mind and how it works in the present moment. But he needs satisfaction right now. He wants to be able to face the world and support his mind without fear. He checks around and comes to the conclusion that Eastern ways of thought can help him more than those of the West. Coming to Eastern philosophy in this way is progress, not a regression to the animal realm. For some people, it’s necessary. Therefore, taking up Eastern thought can be positive for some, while for others it can be negative.



http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/A - Tibetan Buddhism/Authors/Lama Yeshe/The Peaceful Stillness of the Silent Mind/The Peaceful Stillness of the Silent Mind.pdf

DhammaDhatu

I suggest you consult a teacher/monk/scholar..

And the three paths are the three obscure paths: hell, hungry ghost and animal. You have to see that in each of us we have these three paths, and we also have the six realms in us. Don't think that these six kinds of living being are outside of you, that the three paths are outside of you. They are in you. Only with mindfulness can you observe and you will transform.

Dharma Talk given by Thich Nhat Hanh on December 18, 1997 in Plum Village, France.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/B - Theravada/Metta/The Discourse on Love - A Dharma Talk/Dharma Talk given by Thich Nhat Hanh on December 18.htm

zidangus

Yes, but this such a way of life is simply driven by reaction to the three poisons. It's exactly what Buddhist practice is supposed to bring to an end. The animal realm is so-called precisely because animals relate to pleasure and pain in this instinctive way.

So you have risen above pleasure and pain I take it ? You are lucky I have not risen above this yet in my practice. So why have you risen above it, if indeed you have, is it because the Dharma taught you how to do this ? Just like an owner teaches a dog ? My point is animals can understand suffering on some level.

To most Christians, it seems logical that there should be a heaven. Not sure what your point is...

I’m just telling you how it feels logical to me, do you have a problem with this ? Do I need your permission to do this ? I don't think I do

Non sequitur. How does this similarity relate to the issue of post-mortem transmigration between human and animal form?

hmm OK I will spell out how it follows since you seem to finding it hard to add one and one together on this. So if there is no difference between an animals and humans life force then could this mean they are the same thing and therefore it is plausible to suggest that an animals life force could transmigrate to become a humans life force . Was that so hard to see or follow ?

Another non sequitur. There are plenty of reasons to think that humans aren't reborn as animals which have nothing to do with the relative superiority of one form or the other. (Whatever such superiority would mean...)

I agree there are plenty of reasons to think that humans aren't reborn as animals and the relative superiority of one form or the other is one of them. Please feel free to add more reasons
I should add that there are also plenty of reasons to believe that humans are reborn as animals.
I’m stating what I believe. Again do you have a problem with people stating what they believe ?

What do you mean? Important in what context?

Important in that an animals life is just as important as a human life in the universe. I see no universal law which says humans should be more valued than an animal. The laws of nature do not differentiate between humans and animals. It is humans (not all though) who believe that their life has more value than an animals life.

"It's called compassion. Look it up."

Could it be that Buddha looked upon animals as equal to humans and that is why he had compassion and respect for them ? By the way your post are becoming condescending towards me, maybe reflect on how you sound when you talk to people and try to respect others opinions.

How does this relate to the question of post-mortem transmigration?

OK I will spell it out again just for you since you seem to have again missed my point. Buddhism teaches compassion and respect to animals ? Why ? I think it is because humans and animals are considered equivalent in value in Buddhism, so maybe there is a reason why they are equivalent, think about it.
Again was this so hard to see my point here are you just trying to be awkward in your response ? You make me wonder.

So?

So have a think why, and maybe it might occur to you that one possibility is that Buddhism believes that humans can be reborn as animals and visa versa.

There was some very sloppy thinking in your comment. Are you really just about to finish Uni? Maybe you should stay a bit longer, and take a course which teaches critical thinking? It's a little frightening that someone who thinks that way could seriously consider teaching nuclear physics.

I thought it would not take long before you stooped down to something low like this. Because I do not agree with your views, then I am stupid you are intelligent, I have no critical thinking while you are master at critical thinking, that’s why I am wrong and you are right, that’s why my views make no sense and your views make perfect sense. If it makes your ego feel big and strong then believe this. But I do not need to justify my intelligence or views to you, oh mighty great one, who is never wrong. What I do find frightening is that your supposed to be a Buddhist but you show so little respect for others and their views. Maybe you should spend more time practising Buddhist principles of respect instead of trying to insult people and put them down because they don't agree with you.


Feel the Metta

Sabre

I find it easy to accept logically that there is a possibility that animals can understand suffering and how to avoid it on some level. In fact most animals will learn quite quickly that some actions bring suffering and some actions bring reward, for example dogs can be taught what is good by their owner and what is bad by their owner by rewarding and punishment, so to speak. This is just a basic example, but it does show the possibility that animals can understand on some level what is good for them and what brings suffering.
At the end of the day all beings have lives; they love their lives and do not wish to be in suffering, this I am quite sure animals understand.

I agree, but I think animals also have the ability to understand more than suffering.

Recent research has showed the possibility of monkeys having doubt in their decision making. This is what many would consider a human like emotion, having nothing to do with instinct, but apparently animals can have it. I don't recall the exact research, but you can probably find it on google.

Also some grey parrots have shown to be highly intelligent in recognizing patterns, counting etc. They did not just repeat words, they really understood what they were saying (to some extend at least). One of them was named Alex, you can also find about him on the youtube.

Dolphins and wales can communicate and find their partners in ways we don't even understand.

To me it is clear animals and humans are quite identical, but the fact animals can have this level of cognition and communication shows it even more.

Humans consider themselves to be so intelligent.. But is blowing up your own species intelligent? Destroying your own planet, is that smart? Just because we can communicate with words doesn't mean we are smart. No offense to anybody, but I think humans are dumb.

With metta,
Sabre

zidangus

I find it easy to accept logically that there is a possibility that animals can understand suffering and how to avoid it on some level. In fact most animals will learn quite quickly that some actions bring suffering and some actions bring reward, for example dogs can be taught what is good by their owner and what is bad by their owner by rewarding and punishment, so to speak. This is just a basic example, but it does show the possibility that animals can understand on some level what is good for them and what brings suffering.
At the end of the day all beings have lives; they love their lives and do not wish to be in suffering, this I am quite sure animals understand.

I agree, but I think animals also have the ability to understand more than suffering.

Recent research has showed the possibility of monkeys having doubt in their decision making. This is what many would consider a human like emotion, having nothing to do with instinct. I don't recall the exact research, but you can probably find it on google.

Also some grey parrots have shown to be highly intelligent in recognizing patterns, counting. They did not just repeat words, they really understood what they were saying (to some extend at least). One of them was named Alex, you can also find about him on the youtube.

To me it is clear animals and humans are quite identical, but the fact animals can have this level of cognition shows it even more.

With metta,
Sabre

Yes I agree @Sabre, I was just making a basic example, but there are many cases where animals have shown intelligence that many people would not care to admit.

Lastly @fivebells you disagree with my views, which is fine, but I am yet to see any evidence from you that you that my views are incorrect. I presume someone with such high critical thinking as yourself would have evidence to back up your position that my views are wrong. Do you have such evidence ? Please share it if you do, so then we can officialy confirm that my views are rubbish. I eagerly await your evidence

Sabre

You can't really prove or disprove such statements scientifically or philosophically. Some muslims think the Koran is a scientific book. Christians find no scientific evidence against God or say science is just there to test their faith.. Of course a discussion can help and be fun, however don't forget the beautiful thing about Buddhism is you can actually realize the teachings for yourself, no need to blindly belief anyone or anything or persuade someone. And certainly I see no need in taking it personal, which for some reason always happens.. ?

With metta,
Sabre

zidangus

You can't really prove or disprove such statements scientifically or philosophically. Some muslims think the Koran is a scientific book. Christians find no scientific evidence against God or say science is just there to test their faith.. Of course a discussion can help and be fun, however don't forget the beautiful thing about Buddhism is you can actually realize the teachings for yourself, no need to blindly belief anyone or anything or persuade someone. And certainly I see no need in taking it personal, which for some reason always happens.. ?

With metta,
Sabre

You are right Sabre that my or any persons beliefs on this matter cannot be proved or disproved, in these matters I respect other peoples beliefs which they take on faith. If someone does not agree with the views I expressed, that is fine I respect it, and respect the other persons views, it's their belief not mine, I will not mock them for their views or how they came to their views.

And again I agree you are absolutely right Sabre, in that a person can realize it for themself, I have no doubt about this, and if my views are found to be wrong, if and when I realize this, then I will be first to hold my hand up and admit it, without hesitation.

And yes there is no need to take it personal. All I was doing was expressing what I think is the case for animals, humans and rebirth in Buddhism. I was not asking anyone to agree with me or disagree with me. Unfortunately @fivebells decided that he would personally insult me, for expressing my beliefs on this matter. If this is the way he wishes to go about things that is fine, but I do not intend to become involved with his school yard behaviour.


With Metta

Dakini

Zidangus, I'd agree with your statement that animals can understand suffering. Higher order animals can sense human suffering, I think. Not sure about whether or not they can conceptualize the whole 4 Noble Truths package, though.

fivebells

So you have risen above pleasure and pain I take it ?

I made no such claim. "Read for comprehension." This response is a good example of why the only type of conversation worth having about such a topic is some kind of reasoned debate, which you appear to lack the capacity for.

I’m just telling you how it feels logical to me, do you have a problem with this ? Do I need your permission to do this ?

This is ridiculous on a couple of levels. Firstly, it may surprise you to learn that logic is an intellectual assessment, not a feeling. A proposition is logical if it follows as a series of plausible inferences from stipulated hypotheses. Therefore secondly, I'm not demanding that you accept my authority by pointing out that your remarks are based on fallacies.

...could this mean they are the same thing and therefore it is plausible to suggest that an animals life force could transmigrate to become a humans life force .

Dear God. "The fission reactions in the Three Mile Island and the Japanese nuclear disasters are based on the same forces, so it is plausible that the one is a transmigration of the other." Why don't you run this by your Uni teachers and see how well it stands up?

that’s why my views make no sense and your views make perfect sense.

Not your views, your arguments. Perhaps this is the basis of the conflict? Do you believe you are entitled to assert your views in a public forum without having them questioned? Why? (Haha.)

...your supposed to be a Buddhist but you show so little respect for others and their views.

It's your intellect and your views I've disrespected. If you're so identified with those that you experience critical feedback on them as a personal attack, that is very unfortunate. Life is going to be hard when you enter the workforce. It does suggest how you made it through Uni without developing critical faculties, though. (But not how you passed.)

Feel the Metta

I definitely need to work on that. I suggest you work on feeling the upekka (also known as insight.)

person

After reading some of the early commentators treatises they certainly don't strike me as intellectual lightweights or unrealized fools. To me there doesn't seem to be much definative proof either way. So to me it comes down to faith that these people knew something that maybe I don't.

If it can be definatively proven otherwise, eg. Vasubandhu tried describing the size of the sun and moon, which was obviously wrong, or Mount Meru as the center of the universe, I won't accept it.

When it comes to external phenomena I think science certainly does a better job. On internal matters of the mind, so far the past masters have been on the mark for my experience and my meditation practice isn't even very deep or anything.

Rebirth is kind of in a shady middle ground between internal and external so I'll keep an open mind, but for now I think I'll err on the side of the sages.

zidangus

*Yawn* @fivebells=Yada Yada *Yawn* , still waiting for evidence or proof that my beliefs are wrong, back up your position with evidence, and prove that your the great critical thinker you believe you are

You seem to be confusing faith with science. From our previous conversations it is clear you have no faith, if I remember right you did not even understand what its definition was, which was surprising for such a highly intelligent critical thinker you claim to be.:thumbsup:

You also seem to be very narrow minded, in that matters which have not been proved and may not be proved, such as this, you are very quick to attack and say are wrong. Open your narrow mind up to other possibilities. If you knew anything about how science has evolved you would understand that the ideas which were mocked and believed to be stupid and unthinkable have actually led to major breakthroughs in our scientific understanding. But of course you are dug into your trench with views "this is right and this is wrong", so you would not understand this.

And I do not mind having my ideas or beliefs disagreed with or questioned, if the person has their own ideas to counter it, and if there is any evidence to say my beliefs are wrong. (I am still waiting to see evidence from you). But when you begin to get personal which you have, then I think you have crossed a line. You once asked "Do I fear conflict ?" Well I am beginning to wonder if you LIKE conflict, your posts seem to suggest that you do. Do you consider this Buddhist practice ? you have a very strange outlook on Buddhist practice if you do.

You talk about me working on insight, well so should you, as it is clear from your posts that you have none whatsoever, you can't even practice the fundamental Buddhists concepts of tolerance and respect for others views and opinions, never mind gain insight. Your judgmental outlook serves only one purpose and that is to make that big ego you have already become even bigger :wow:

By the way I don't have Uni teachers, I finished Uni long ago and have four degree's to prove it, and I assure you I am very competent at my job.

Open that judgmental narrow mind and feel the Metta fivebells :thumbsup:

zidangus

Dear God. "The fission reactions in the Three Mile Island and the Japanese nuclear disasters are based on the same forces, so it is plausible that the one is a transmigration of the other." Why don't you run this by your Uni teachers and see how well it stands up?

Well if you knew anything about physics then you would know that at one time all the forces could have been the same. Have you never heard of Super unified theory ?
Well I will explain it to you, as you might learn something. In the early universe , gravity, weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces were unified into a SINGLE force. Only as the temperature dropped did the forces separate, with gravity separating first and then as the temperature lowered the strong force, and again as temperature lowered the electromagnetic and weak forces separated to leave us with the 4 distinct forces that we see today in the Universe. This process is called spontaneous symmetry breaking, look it up

Cloud

@zidangus, Hate to intrude upon your explaining and stuff, but you do know that at this point that is only the prevalent working theory (not that I disagree)? They're trying to explain how things got to this point without having all of the data, so they came up with an explanation that fits the limited data they have. It doesn't even go to the beginning; they're completely baffled, probably because they're not on the right track yet! Science excels at theorizing, but scientific theories are often overturned when new data proves them to be faulty.

fivebells

...I do not mind having my ideas or beliefs disagreed with or questioned, if the person has their own ideas to counter it...

This is ridiculous. Only people with their own ideas about post-mortem experience are qualified to criticize yours?

...and if there is any evidence to say my beliefs are wrong.

Further indication that your education had some serious holes. "Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence." If you want people to accept your views and your arguments, the onus is on you to provide some convincing reason for people to do so. All I've done in this thread is show that the reasons you've given for your views make no sense. I haven't set out to prove that there's no rebirth, only that your arguments in support of it are bogus. I am quite prepared to admit to complete ignorance regarding post-mortem experience, even to admit the possibility (but extremely low probability) that the Buddhist cosmology is correct. It is the humble thing to do.

You once asked "Do I fear conflict ?" Well I am beginning to wonder if you LIKE conflict, your post seem to suggest that you do.

I like to jump up and down on ideas until they break, because the ones which don't break are worthwhile. If you got a PhD in a science/engineering field, you ought to be familiar with this attitude. And I dislike self-serving nonsense. These two attitudes do lead to conflict sometimes. I don't like or dislike this kind of conflict.

Do you consider this Buddhist practice ? you have a very strange outlook on Buddhist practice if you do.

Do I consider what Buddhist practice? If you mean entering into conflict, not exactly, but it is certainly possible to practice in the midst of conflict. The Buddha did not fear such conflict. Check out the Mahatanhasankhaya sutra.

...it is clear from your posts that.. you can't even practice the fundamental Buddhists concepts of tolerance and respect for others views and opinions

This precept regarding respect for others' views and opinions is new to me, and would be interesting to read about. Could you give me a citation, please?

By the way I don't have Uni teachers, I finished Uni long ago and have four degree's to prove it, and I assure you I am very competent at my job.

Sorry, I misunderstood/misremembered your Nuclear Weapons Engineering post. It appears you have a PhD. It makes it even harder to understand how your thinking regarding postmortem experience could be so sloppy.

Cloud

Alright alright. If you guys are just going to continue to be at each others' throats, I'll have to start deletin' me some posts or shutting this down. Can we get back to real discussion of the topic and not a personal war? Thank you.

fivebells

In the above comment, I wouldn't object to you deleting my first and last paragraphs and the quotes they respond to, if they are too inflammatory.

fivebells

Oh, and the first sentence of the second paragraph, and changing "self-serving nonsense" to "flawed reasoning."

Cloud

I'm not going to do any editing right now, probably taking off in a bit. Just don't wanna see any more of these back-and-forth posts after this. Thread's going entirely off-track and into a personal war that's very poor practice of right speech. Back to topic discussion!

fivebells

Well, my second paragraph was on-topic.

zidangus

@zidangus, Hate to intrude upon your explaining and stuff, but you do know that at this point that is only the prevalent working theory (not that I disagree)? They're trying to explain how things got to this point without having all of the data, so they came up with an explanation that fits the limited data they have. It doesn't even go to the beginning; they're completely baffled, probably because they're not on the right track yet! Science excels at theorizing, but scientific theories are often overturned when new data proves them to be faulty.

@cloud, yes I know the theories of super and grand unification of the forces are unproven, however, there is experimental evidence of the unification of the electromagnetic and weak interactions given in the standard electroweak theory. Moreover, grand unified theories have not been proven experimentally, but there is quite strong circumstantial evidence that GUT's are needed to make sense of the Universe. Anyway I was making the point that what @fivebells considers stupid may not be as stupid as he thinks.




With Metta

zidangus

Zidangus, I'd agree with your statement that animals can understand suffering. Higher order animals can sense human suffering, I think. Not sure about whether or not they can conceptualize the whole 4 Noble Truths package, though.

I don't think that animals can conceptualize the whole 4 Noble Truths either @Dakini, I just think that its clear that animals can understand suffering. Moreover, I think that in a lot of cases animals can learn and understand what actions result in pain and what actions result in reward. There is also evidence that at least some animals feel empathy.
It is also clear to me that humans do not know much, with regards to what an animal truly understands or feels.


With Metta

zidangus

Just to clear up what I actually said in my original post, that someone feels has so called bogus reasoning.

My point

“Animals can understand suffering on some level”
It seems a reasonable statement to me, lots of evidence to back it up. I would say nothing bogus about this in my opinion.

My point
“I mean are humans so different from animals ?”

Again seems a reasonable statement to suggest they are not, considering for example there is a approx 96% match between human and chimpanzee DNA across the whole genome. I would say nothing bogus about this in my opinion.


My point
“is the life force of an animal so different from the life force of a human ?”

Open to interpretation, I believe they are the same, due to the fact that animals and humans are composed of essentially the same components, a sentient beings life, is life no matter what form it takes. Conclusive maybe not, bogus definitely not in my opinion.

My point
“Is the world or even universe created specifically for humans ?”

Pretty sure it is not, tough if someone wants to believe that, then that's fine, However, I do not. Anyway I would say nothing bogus about this opinion.

My point
“Animals are just as important to this world as humans are”

Open to interpretation, but a reasonable thing to say and believe I think, I do not see any evidence to suggest that this is not true, or it is a BOGUS claim. Again if you believe otherwise then that's fine.


My point
“If Buddha did not think this way, then why did he constantly warn against the bringing of harm and/or death to any living being, why did he not just say human being ?”

Again open to interpretation just as any other thing Buddha said. My interpretation (that Buddha thought that animals are reborn humans and visa versa, which I might add is also taught in Buddhist teachings), is just as valid as anyone else's interpretation. Buddha spoke many times of not harming sentient beings, and for us to show compassion to all sentient beings. Again if someone interprets why he said this as a different reason from what I believe then that's fine also, but my interpretation is just as valid and plausible as anyone else's interpretation. So again conclusive maybe not but bogus definitely not in my opinion.




My point
“Is not the highest ideal of Buddhism to practice and work toward the permanent end to the suffering of all living beings, not just humans ?”

Well it is isn't it ? So if this is the highest ideal, then is it not plausible to believe that it is the highest ideal because Buddhists teachings believe that all life is in effect the same ? Again open to interpretation but was my reasoning bogus ? I would say not.

My point
“Buddhist teachings are littered with references to animals and being reborn as an animal”

Again they are. I am not making this up, this is a fact. Buddhist teachings talk a lot about humans being reborn as animals and visa versa. This seems pretty conclusive evidence that Buddhists teachings believe that humans can be reborn as animals and visa versa. I then go on to cite two examples of the Buddha being reborn as an animal from BUDDHIST TEACHINGS. So I would say nothing bogus about this in my opinion.


My point
“Are these not evidence that animal life is just as important as human life in Buddhism ?”

Again this is a reasonable statement to make in my opinion, Buddhist teachings talking about Buddha being reborn as an animal seems pretty conclusive evidence that Buddhist teachings think that humans can be reborn as animals and that human life is just as important as animal life. But if someone wants to believe otherwise or interpret it different then fine, not a problem. So open to interpretation yes, but bogus ? I don't think so.

So to sum up, I really cannot see any seriously flawed/bogus whatever someone wants to call it, arguments in what I said. I am not asking anyone to agree with my arguments or my views. If you believe otherwise then fine.

With Metta

Sabre

I wish I would be reborn as a turtle or a koi fish, than I could live to be 200 years old!..

Oh... wait... :crazy:

fivebells

Just to clear up what I actually said in my original post...

Except what you actually said was that all that stuff somehow implies that post-mortem transmigration from animal to human form is possible. That was the bogus part. The only relevant material in your catechism was "The Buddha said so," and that was a) dependent on the provenance, philology and translation of the relevant sutras and b) an argument from authority.

zidangus

:om:

fivebells

Excellent response! Keep it up! (So to speak.)

zidangus

Buddhist teachings imply what I imply, are you blind cannot you not see this ? :screwy:

And please do not try to impose your reasoning on to me, what you say is bogus, seems quite logical to me for all the reasons I gave, which were logical reasons and leads me to have a gut feeling about my beliefs being right, you know gut feeling or faith, something you do not comprehend.

If you disagree why don't you give some examples of why my arguments are wrong then ? I mean real examples not just big words that no body ever uses and have no significance or relevance in your so called criticism of my arguments. Please point out what argument I made that was so bogus and how your high and mighty arguments and reasoning are so pure and undoubted.

Its no wonder a lot of members do not like posting on the forum, when there are people like you trying bully and intimidate people with insults and over the top posts about how you can't believe in anything that has not got scientific reasoning or mathematical proof behind it. Do yourself a favour and get of your high horse, and get over yourself and your pompous opinions.

and now you can go and have the last word which you undoubtedly will, with your drivel about bogus arguments and education and straw men etc etc

Bye


:wave:

Cloud

Alright, we're back again to this. Closing this thread unless there's any pressing reason for it to be open. Please continue this in PM's gentlemen.