Mathematics of Rebirth and Population Multiplication

charirama

I think the concept of linear time is an illusion based on how we experience life on this planet.

Amida

@aura

In reality, all I know of, for certain, is this Darwinian universe. For Darwinian evolution to work you need the population to continually increase.

Offspring:

2 parents have 4
4 children have 12
12 grandchildren have 36
36 great-grandchildren have 92

And on and on the process continues multiplying for Darwinian evolution to work.

Are there other realms of becoming not bound by Darwinian evolution? Maybe. But if rebirth is figured within the confines of Darwinian evolution it doesn't work mathematically, when it comes to reaching a zero point; and without a zero point it doesn't make sense.

But as I said, if things are not really increasing, but only appear to increase, then rebirth is not subject to such mathematics. For this to be true, the ground of reality must be a form of consciousness.

ThailandTom

You are still confining your rule to this planet alone and without any real basis on the process of rebirth, known of do as we are not enlightened. If you spend a lot of your time running the math and keeping souley to this planet, disregarding rebirth as an actual phenomana, that is up to you and you have every right-but would your time be better spent doing other things?

To note, you only mentioned numbers of humans in your last post.

aura

Are there other realms of becoming not bound by Darwinian evolution? Maybe. But if rebirth is figured within the confines of Darwinian evolution it doesn't work mathematically, when it comes to reaching a zero point; and without a zero point it doesn't make sense.

But as I said, if things are not really increasing, but only appear to increase, then rebirth is not subject to such mathematics. For this to be true, the ground of reality must be a form of consciousness.

Yes, of course, what you know and experience as reality...
depends entirely on your consciousness.

Your bloodhound has a consciousness of reality beyond your own. Your bloodhound can tell where you've been, tracking you effortlessly across town by your scent. A bloodhound does not limit his consciousness and experience of reality by the thoughts of some ignorant human being who died in 1882.

Do you find it necessary to limit your dog's consciousness and understanding of the world according to Darwin's limited perception of his world? Perhaps not.
Do you find it necessary to limit your own consciousness and understanding of the world according to Darwin's limited perceptions and experiences of his world? Perhaps.
But what Darwin experienced and knew of his world was not even as much as a bloodhound knows and experiences of the world.

Before you would choose to limit your own consciousness and understanding of reality according to your interpretation of Darwin's thoughts on the subject of reality, I would suggest spending a day in the company of a bloodhound...
and learning to appreciate just how much of the reality all around you that you've been missing on an every day basis.

Likewise, if you seek to observe the phenomena of rebirth and past life experience...
you would wish to spend time observing and listening to very young children.
Anything less is mere speculation.

driedleaf

Everything has a true nature
There are illusions that causes one to not see the true nature
There is an end to that illusion
The way leading to the end of that illusion is to directly experience something for oneself

Amida

@aura

Darwin's perception of the world is supported by countless observable and testable realities.

Buddha's perception of rebirth is supported by much less. It cannot be tested, as of yet, and can only be observed by the individual, whereas Darwin's can be observed and tested by all.

*Again*, I'm NOT saying rebirth is untrue, it may be a reality. There are many extraordinary claims made, but so little evidence, if any. The Christians make one claim about reality, the Buddhist makes another, the Hindu makes another. If a man believes something, which seems absurd, without evidence, then how gullible he is. I don't care if he's believing Buddha, Jesus, Krishna, etc.; he ought to have some reasonable reason to believe.

compassionate_warrior

But 2 parents don't always have 4 kids. In Europe, the population is contracting, especially in Italy. In Japan, too, if I'm not mistaken, and to an extreme degree in Russia, where parents are not only having fewer kids (families there were always small, except among non-Russian ethnicities), but there are a lot of deaths related to alcoholism. So I guess Darwinian principles aren't valid in the developed world, and the former socialist countries...? Darwinism, your statements imply, only applies in countries where parents have more than 2 or 3 children generation after generation.

As posted earlier, rebirth is pure faith. Except for the conditions I listed earlier. Buddhism, contrary to popular belief, is not pure logic. That comes as a surprise to some. Others choose to reject rebirth, but accept the rest of the package, which is more reason-based. But most of those who accept or reject rebirth don't arrive at their decision based on math formulas.

"The ground of reality must be a form of consciousness". Yes. See one of my earlier posts. Scientists have been saying since the 1930's (though it's only recently they've been saying it publicly) that consciousness is a field that permeates the universe, sort of like your "ground of reality" idea. At this point, it might be a good idea to review all the posts thoughtfully. The answer to your question was covered a page or two ago.

Amida

@compassionate_warrior

I have read all the posts. To imply I haven't, or have somehow missed something, is insulting. Why are some people in this thread rude? Doesn't seem very Buddha like...

For Darwinian evolution to work, which was my point, you need population multiplication. No multiplication, as I presented, then no natural selection. Natural selection needs A LOT of numbers to naturally select from. And my point was, from what we can observe, in a Darwinian world, numbers continue to increase. The ad infinitum increase, in original births, would seem illogical in a universe proven to equal ZERO. And as I said, the mathematics of rebirth seem absurd in light of mathematics, BUT if the ground nature of being is a form of consciousness, then mathematics wouldn't matter, ultimately.

Anyways, I made my point. Some people provided me with something to consider, others offered nothing, others were counter-productive.

Mountains

But as I said, if things are not really increasing, but only appear to increase, then rebirth is not subject to such mathematics.

By jove, I think he's starting (after three pages of headache-inducing posts) to get it!!

For this to be true, the ground of reality must be a form of consciousness.

Or maybe not. I have no clue what that sentence means in relation to this discussion.

In any event, I have a headache. But the good news is, I'm not losing any sleep over the number of sentient beings being born, nor of the number of rebirths happening. It's just not on my radar right now (or ever).

Jeffrey

What is a person? Without an answer to that you can procede no further. My lamas answer in the first 20 responses totally answer this question :coffee:

Amida

@Mountains

I've thought over these things for a long time, and I'm not just starting to get anything. I created this topic, in hopes, to gain some insightful ways of reasoning in relation to rebirth, mathematics of original births, and cessation of cyclic existence.

It appears, most just can't coherently contribute to this matter, so they make pricking comments. I can't help but be reminded of christian forums.

Anyways... this thread has become painful and unproductive. Maybe a moderator could lock it for me.

Amida

@Jeffery

Actually, that didn't answer the matter of rebirth and population multiplication.

Mountains

I'm not going to repeat what I said waaaaaaaay back at the beginning of this. Clearly you didn't read it, or if you did you didn't care. You just keep nagging and nagging and nagging it to death.

You may have thought about this since time began, but that doesn't change anything. Thinking is just attachment. I'm just curious why you feel you need to know this information (which is unknowable), and what difference it will make to your practice? Anything else is just a mental construct that's getting in the way of your progress.

Amida

Sigh...

Let's just pretend we have some superior insight into the nature of things, while telling people these things are unknown. Lol... Some people make Buddhism look like a pathetic cult for the gullible and unintelligent.

Jeffrey

Amida, the whole question is moot if you don't understand what a person is. Rebirth belongs to the category of relative truth. It is like saying 'the sun rises in the east'.. It is useful. But it is not true, or at least it is only a convention. In reality the earth orbits the sun. In the same way rebirth is relatively true. But ultimately untrue. This is shown in the diamond sutra where buddha says that there is no person, no birth, no death, and no lifespan. Believing in any of those four views means you are in samsara. And samsara is not the true existence it is just a layer of thinking (habitual) that causes suffering. Since samsara is conditional that means it is impermanent, non-self (compound), and dukkha. Because samsara is impermanent there is a chance for enlightenment.

The purpose of rebirth is to dislodge one from eternalism or nihilism. But since rebirth is a relative truth the third dharma seal is true! The notion of rebirth causes dukkha when grasped to.

Please remember that buddhism is a method and not a philosophy.

Thus your question is wrong from the beginning. It is like you are asking what color are the horns growing from a rabbits head.

ThailandTom

That post would seem to tie everything up in a neat and tidy parcel if I do not say so myself.
-To note, if people have been rude, it is because they are human beings, buddhists like everyone else are human beings, thus have emotions and sometimes one cannot act in a skillful manner 100% of the time, depending on the person and the situation. Nobody is perfect

tmottes

If you take offense where offense is not intended, you are a fool. If you take offense where offense is intended, you are also a fool.**

**Not personally insulting anyone. It is all about how we view things. We fill gaps in our knowledge with our own bias.

SeaOfTranquility

Amida, Who do you think you are?

If you want to understand re-birth in any meaningful way that is the question to be answered. Only you can answer that question.

ThailandTom

as the buddha said-

''do you allow friends into your house??''
''yes I do''

''and do you offer them food when they enter your dwelling?''
''yes I do offer them food''

''and if they do not wish to eat, who does the food belong to?''
''the food is mine sir''

''the same applies with your insults, they are all yours as I do not wish to accept them, they are all yours''

aura

Darwin's perception of the world is supported by countless observable and testable realities.

Darwin's theories are called theories for the reason that they are theories about reality and not reality itself. Unless you conduct repeatable, verifiable, double blind, eons-long experiments involving the entire planet, Darwin's theories are neither observable nor testable in the least.

If you do not observe any more of the observable world than Darwin did, then I am certain that Darwin's theories adequately reflect your own life experience and consciousness just fine. Why would you have a need for Buddhism to offer you any explanations for what you do not observe in the first place? What you do not observe and experience is not a part of your reality and does not exist as far as you are concerned. Why would you have any need to believe in or to be persuaded to believe in or to pointlessly speculate about the existence of things that you do not directly observe as reality at all?

As far as I'm concerned, Darwin's theories do not adequately describe, let alone manage to explain the world as I observe and experience it on a daily basis. Darwin's theories were completely inadequate for explaining my experience of having been born remembering my former life and death, being silenced by the adults as a child, and eventually growing up and finding the remains of that lifetime still standing as I once left them, in a foreign language I don't understand, on the other side of the world. Darwin's theories do not explain why I observe many children likewise exhibiting the same phenomenon of historically verifiable rebirth issues. Darwin's theories do not explain observable phenomena associated with conception and childbirth and the origin of human consciousness in the least. Darwin's theories do not explain my near-death experience, nor a thousand other things that are a part of my everyday observable world.

If you were born with no childhood memory of a former life and death, have observed no children likewise exhibiting the same phenomenon, and have not directly observed the fascinating phenomena associated with conception and childbirth, I'm sure Darwin's theories are more than adequate to meet your own needs, and wish you the best of luck with them.

Mountains

Sigh...

Let's just pretend we have some superior insight into the nature of things, while telling people these things are unknown. Lol... Some people make Buddhism look like a pathetic cult for the gullible and unintelligent.

All I can say is "wow". You're a piece of work. You need to try studying the concept of "ego" before posting further in this thread...

Sheesh...

Is anyone else as through with this thread as I am?