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.
@Wuji: Some things I have read that may help: Anatta/"no self" really means no permanent or unchanging self. Also, similar to Sabre's tree analogy, I have also read a candle analogy, where rebirth is similar to a flame from one candle lighting another candle. The flame of the second candle is not entirely the same as the first, nor is it entirely separate.
Kamma is the Anchient Law that negativity cannot cease by negativity but only by positivity:) In humans interactions it is a causal, moral and menatl law.
Believing in karma means believing in being reborn. Otherwise, there will be no karma after death.
"§ When I [Ajaan Geoff/Thanisssaro Bhikkhu] first went to practice meditation with Ajaan Fuang, I asked him if people really were reborn after death. He answered, "When you start out practicing, the Buddha asks you to believe in only one thing: karma. As for things aside from that, whether or not you believe them isn't really important." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/fuang/itself.html#people :buck:
Believing in karma means believing in being reborn. Otherwise, there will be no karma after death
lol! You haven't been on this forum very long! Lots of people believe in karma as it applies to the current lifetime only. They don't believe in rebirth. You missed out on those endless debates.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Today I was contemplating rebirth and my understanding of it is that everyone contains energy. We have Kamma based on our actions which affect that energy which is reborn. What I'm confused about is how can we be reborn with our Kamma if there is no spirit or soul. I don't particularly believe in a soul, spirit, or rebirth I just want to understand how it works in the Buddhist sense. If we are to be reborn and our past actions affect our rebirth doesn't there have to be a vessel to carry the energy and contain it as a form to enter a new life?
I've kind of always thought our energy just goes back into the universe surrounding us but, for rebirth to work I'd think there would need to be a membrane containing it the way our skin contains our body.
In science there is a fairly new idea called emergence. It says that for order and pattern to arise there doesn't need to be a conductor or general. In nature when the conditions are right simple phenomena can self-organize to create more complex phenomena with new properties. If we transfer that concept over to the self then it could be seen that the skandhas could be self-organizing and produce the new phenomena of karma without the need for a conductor or "I". Applying emergence to our concious experience is speculation on my part, but this seems to be what the Buddha is saying.
In science there is a fairly new idea called emergence.
It ain't that new!:) I agree with you very much! The buddha Clearly saw it. When he speaks of "arising" when he speaks of the "unmade". The aggregate mind, these are all emmergnce as you say.
There is only one book I know that pushed this idea (Joanna Macy) but it doesn't do it that well, imo.
My question is if someone like suicide bombers who kill many innocent people & die in the process. Certainly, he will have to face the consequence of his actions even after death. Any comments?
Believing in karma means believing in being reborn. Otherwise, there will be no karma after death
lol! You haven't been on this forum very long! Lots of people believe in karma as it applies to the current lifetime only. They don't believe in rebirth. You missed out on those endless debates.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
In science there is a fairly new idea called emergence.
It ain't that new!:) I agree with you very much! The buddha Clearly saw it. When he speaks of "arising" when he speaks of the "unmade". The aggregate mind, these are all emmergnce as you say.
There is only one book I know that pushed this idea (Joanna Macy) but it doesn't do it that well, imo.
keep on thinking!:)
No, it ain't that new to science, I think it was Alan Turing sometime in the 50s, but I don't think its an idea most regular folks know about.
In science there is a fairly new idea called emergence.
It ain't that new!:) I agree with you very much! The buddha Clearly saw it. When he speaks of "arising" when he speaks of the "unmade". The aggregate mind, these are all emmergnce as you say.
There is only one book I know that pushed this idea (Joanna Macy) but it doesn't do it that well, imo.
keep on thinking!:)
No, it ain't that new to science, I think it was Alan Turing sometime in the 50s, but I don't think its an idea most regular folks know about.
Ya, the attempts to formalise it came out of information theory (where it is called the uninspiring "cybernetics") but obviously it was around for millenia before that.
Darwin understood it - evolution is emergence. Aristotle's holism is emergence and, as said, the Buddha probably got it first of all.
The three marks are emergent from the very constraints of all existence. They literally come from nothing when you have at least three points and causation. I think people don't get this often, but to my mind that is what lead the buddha to discover them. he didn't just meditate his way to seeing them, he saw that for all things that can possibly exist they are subject to these ontologically emerged truths. (I have a "thing" I do with three pebbles to explain/explore this - I find it helpful)
The four noble truths emerge from the three marks once you have finite sentient systems. The illusion of self emerges from the perspective of experience... and so on.
This goers very off topic. I would be delighted to talk on this with a new thread, of if you would prefer Pms:)
My question is if someone like suicide bombers who kill many innocent people & die in the process. Certainly, he will have to face the consequence of his actions even after death. Any comments?
@person contemplating on the idea of Emergence I didn't really get far, regarding the concept of rebirth. What I mean is that if the skandhas are mere elements that constitute once life and the process of birth gives a new person everytime, how does that person carry his karma to 'a next life'? I mean if birth is random, then logically there is no karma (always connecting the karma concept with rebirth). If though you are refering to karma, as the basis that creates the personality of a human being, or better influences it, where does the 'program' of this karma recite after death till the next rebirth?
@Flower- it was you that got me back to thinking about the alaya or storehouse consciousness. I'm sticking with that.
I will repeat that this appears to be turning into another karma/rebirth thread with a straw man to make it seem more realistic.
I still have that dead horse picture, folks. Beware.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@person contemplating on the idea of Emergence I didn't really get far, regarding the concept of rebirth. What I mean is that if the skandhas are mere elements that constitute once life and the process of birth gives a new person everytime, how does that person carry his karma to 'a next life'? I mean if birth is random, then logically there is no karma (always connecting the karma concept with rebirth). If though you are refering to karma, as the basis that creates the personality of a human being, or better influences it, where does the 'program' of this karma recite after death till the next rebirth?
Good question, I'm not really sure I have a strong enough grasp on the idea myself to really answer but I can try.
First off, I don't think rebirth is random. The idea, I think, is that there doesn't need to be a person for karma to carry over. As to where karma resides between lives the Tibetan view is that there is a very subtle level of conciousness that "holds" karma, this isn't a self though, and I'm not really sure what it is. The idea of emergence is that phenomena can exist without something apart from themselves that organizes them. So to transfer that idea over to our minds then our "self" and our "very subtle conciousness" can exist without an inherently existing "I". Taking from what the Buddha said about the skandhas being the parts of the self I think that the skandhas can self-organize to create the emergence of the self. So rather than the self containing the skandhas the self emerges from the combination of these factors and one of the new properties of the self is intention and thus karma. The ignorance that this self is inherently existing creates the karma for the next rebirth. I guess I'd say that according to my understanding of emergence karma wouldn't need a container between births just like the molecules in a drop of water don't need a container to stick together. I don't know if this is right, the idea seems similar to what the Buddha has said about DO so I'm just trying to extrapolate here.
Well dear @SherabDorje I have a thing for science what can I say. When someone evokes science in the name of logic to 'prove' something metaphysical in nature, I bite (the person, not science). After many years around metaphysics I have stopped 'scientificating' thinks that are unreachable by the mind and use other means to comprehent them... Yes to all skeptics out there beware I'm coming...
Ok, seriously @SherabDorje, I still cling to the alaya concept, but I just wanted some clarifications from the 'science lovers'...
I couldn't edit my last post fast enough, but I think my mistake just shows where this is headed. I thought it was the "suicide bomber" thread (because they're so similar), but this really is the karma/rebirth thread.
Well @person it seems to me that you are trying to kill the Ego-Self here, I must admit, you're doing a really good job. I don't know if in budhism there is a cocrete ego or a pile of elements that compose the Ego, but surely the alaya is not the Ego, and thus, either you beleive that the alaya needs to be purified by the inflicting pain of the Ego, or as in Ekayana being beleived one needs to clear his eyes from the mud that the ego has covers his eyes with to see the clear light of the alaya, my understanding is... guys and girls eat your ego-selves and be free (ok I feel a little bit irritating to all of you right now but its 01:41 am here in Greece, it is hot and this is all tha I can give you... )
My question is if someone like suicide bombers who kill many innocent people & die in the process. Certainly, he will have to face the consequence of his actions even after death. Any comments?
Didn't you post a thread on this, and didn't you get answers? I'm not sure it's possible to mix religions like that. We should be asking what the teachings in Islam are with respect to that. The closest thing in Buddhism to suicide bombing is self-immolation. Killing of any kind is wrong, and suicide, apparently, incurs extra-bad karma.
Comments
Anatta/"no self" really means no permanent or unchanging self. Also, similar to Sabre's tree analogy, I have also read a candle analogy, where rebirth is similar to a flame from one candle lighting another candle. The flame of the second candle is not entirely the same as the first, nor is it entirely separate.
Spiny
There is only one book I know that pushed this idea (Joanna Macy) but it doesn't do it that well, imo.
keep on thinking!:)
many innocent people & die in the process.
Certainly, he will have to face the consequence of his actions
even after death. Any comments?
Darwin understood it - evolution is emergence. Aristotle's holism is emergence and, as said, the Buddha probably got it first of all.
The three marks are emergent from the very constraints of all existence. They literally come from nothing when you have at least three points and causation. I think people don't get this often, but to my mind that is what lead the buddha to discover them. he didn't just meditate his way to seeing them, he saw that for all things that can possibly exist they are subject to these ontologically emerged truths. (I have a "thing" I do with three pebbles to explain/explore this - I find it helpful)
The four noble truths emerge from the three marks once you have finite sentient systems. The illusion of self emerges from the perspective of experience... and so on.
This goers very off topic. I would be delighted to talk on this with a new thread, of if you would prefer Pms:)
namaste
I will repeat that this appears to be turning into another karma/rebirth thread with a straw man to make it seem more realistic.
I still have that dead horse picture, folks. Beware.
First off, I don't think rebirth is random. The idea, I think, is that there doesn't need to be a person for karma to carry over. As to where karma resides between lives the Tibetan view is that there is a very subtle level of conciousness that "holds" karma, this isn't a self though, and I'm not really sure what it is. The idea of emergence is that phenomena can exist without something apart from themselves that organizes them. So to transfer that idea over to our minds then our "self" and our "very subtle conciousness" can exist without an inherently existing "I". Taking from what the Buddha said about the skandhas being the parts of the self I think that the skandhas can self-organize to create the emergence of the self. So rather than the self containing the skandhas the self emerges from the combination of these factors and one of the new properties of the self is intention and thus karma. The ignorance that this self is inherently existing creates the karma for the next rebirth. I guess I'd say that according to my understanding of emergence karma wouldn't need a container between births just like the molecules in a drop of water don't need a container to stick together. I don't know if this is right, the idea seems similar to what the Buddha has said about DO so I'm just trying to extrapolate here.
Ok, seriously @SherabDorje, I still cling to the alaya concept, but I just wanted some clarifications from the 'science lovers'...
Sheesh.
I'm not sure it's possible to mix religions like that. We should be asking what the teachings in Islam are with respect to that. The closest thing in Buddhism to suicide bombing is self-immolation. Killing of any kind is wrong, and suicide, apparently, incurs extra-bad karma.