Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Life after life

QuandariusQuandarius Explorer
edited May 2012 in Buddhism Basics
Hello: I don't know whether the category I have chosen is appropriate for this subject, but I see no more appropriate one, so it can stay here, as far as I am concerned.

What follows may seem clumsily expressed. However, it seems to me that there is something in it that others may want to ponder.

From various sources, I have received an impression that at death, the conscious aspects of the mind are lost. Merely intellectual development applied only to the life that has just ended. A Tibetan Llama, in a video I saw, was the last person that seemed to support this view. Furthermore, it seemed that he was asserting that, no matter what one may do with one's life, only things that affect the subtle mind are taken into the after-death state. For example, if I understand this Llama aright, one might study mathematics all one's life. Nevertheless, this ability will not be carried over into any next human life, because all those mental abilities will be forgotten (and, maybe, lost) at death.

To me, this is difficult to come to terms with. I understand that one cannot demand of the universe, of God, or any other power, how things ought to be. If only things that affect the citta (the subtle mind) are retained, it is possible that only aspects of moral character etc. are carried from one life to another. If that is the case, and if Einstein had happened to be a violent and greedy man, what would be carried over, when it comes into contact with a human brain and body in the next life, might have a very unfortunate life. For example, that life might be one of deprivation and oppression (to compensate for the hypothetical greed and violence of the last life) and even stupidity of mind.

Yet, things that I also have read would seem to indicate otherwise. For example, I recall reading a book called: Yesterday's Children, in which a young English woman remembers flashes (and more) of a fairly recent former life in Ireland. Eventually, through doing research and making enquiries, she came to be reunited with the children (her past family) that, through dying early in the last life, she had been forced to abandon. It is a very moving story, and I don't believe that any reasonable person could doubt that, in this book, she is telling the truth (the ISBN number is:0-7499-1246-4. Piatkus Books, 1993).

There have also been cases where children, at almost unbelievably young ages, has learned several languages, been a precocious mathematical or musician etc. There are many cases of this kind of thing on record. One is compelled to ask: how did these children get their talents? If they were carried forward from earlier lives, this would seem to argue that mental traits, as well as moral development, remain with the deceased being, and manifest in later lives.

Despite the acute — and not conventionally-orientated — analysis, by Buddhists, of the nature of beings, I am trying to make a case for some kind of "person" (as the ordinary human being would see it) surviving death, not just a collection of moral (or immoral) traits.

Has anyone anything to contribute to this subject? If so, I should be very glad to hear what you have to say. Also, has anyone else had an impression, from what they have read or heard, that is similar to the impression I have received?
«1

Comments

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    It's interesting that the lama you cite believed that intellectual learning is left behind at death, because that's the exact opposite of what the tulku system represents. It's said that many tulkus are quick studies, because for them, the texts they're presented with are more like a review of past learning, so they're able to progress very quickly.

    Child prodigies are a mystery, but some of the more exceptional cases really make you wonder. There was a spectacular case in Oakland, CA, decades ago, of a little African American girl who was a pro at pool. She was just 3 years old, they outfitted her with her own pool cue, and she'd clean up the table like a pro. What an odd talent to bring into this life, no? Things like that are hard to explain without a belief in rebirth.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2012
    ....And things like that are hard to explain with a belief in rebirth.
    The best thing is to simply NOT try to explain them.

    Where does it get you, other than entrenched in more questioning and confusion?
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    Yeah, the notion of actual memories carrying over from one life to the next doesn't quite seem to fit with the standard explanation. As to innate abilities I don't think its claimed that the actual knowledge is carried over but the ability is a result of an especially strong karma associated with a particular area.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    Actually, it doesn't lead to more questions. A belief in rebirth or reincarnation pretty well settles the issue. For believers, that is.

    I think there's a contradiction between "standard explanations" and actual practice, at least in Tibetan Buddhism. I think what we're seeing is the influence of traditional pre-Buddhist beliefs on Buddhist teachings. And that phenomenon of folk beliefs influencing Buddhist practice and beliefs is not at all uncommon across the Buddhist world.
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    I think there's a contradiction between "standard explanations" and actual practice, at least in Tibetan Buddhism. I think what we're seeing is the influence of traditional pre-Buddhist beliefs on Buddhist teachings. And that phenomenon of folk beliefs influencing Buddhist practice and beliefs is not at all uncommon across the Buddhist world.
    I've never studied Bon, what are Bon beliefs about reincarnation? Especially how they differ from Buddhism.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    Well, it depends on how you define "Bon", that's more complicated than you'd think, I've come to learn. But if we take the shamanic tradition of the whole region of Central Asia and Tibet/Mongolia, there's a belief in reincarnation, and the soul.
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    I guess I mean pre-Buddhist Bon, if that is any different from your answer.

    So does the notion of the Bardo come from Bon? As it seems what you're saying is that original Buddhism has no kind of transmigration, ie. the Theravada notion of one candle lighting another, but TB has some notion of some entity that moves from life to life?
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    Hi friends,

    It's hard to see exactly what goes across lives and what doesn't. But it's also one of the things the Buddha said not ponder upon, at least if you see it as a result of karma, which I do.
    These four imponderables are not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about them would go mad & experience vexation. Which four? [..] The results of kamma that is not to be speculated about. [..]
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html#bandw
    That means that knowing these things are not essential for us to practice the path.

    However, what is interesting to focus on is our attachments to intellect/ideas.

    With metta,
    Sabre
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    My lama says that rebirth is like 'the sun rises in the east'. There are all kinds of problems like how does the 'backpack' of karma hop from one area and time to the next. It takes understanding the nature of mind and if you did understand that there would be no need to understand karma/rebirth.
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    edited May 2012

    Yet, things that I also have read would seem to indicate otherwise. For example, I recall reading a book called: Yesterday's Children, in which a young English woman remembers flashes (and more) of a fairly recent former life in Ireland. Eventually, through doing research and making enquiries, she came to be reunited with the children (her past family) that, through dying early in the last life, she had been forced to abandon. It is a very moving story, and I don't believe that any reasonable person could doubt that, in this book, she is telling the truth (the ISBN number is:0-7499-1246-4. Piatkus Books, 1993).
    Oh, Jenny Cockell. In fact, a reasonable person should doubt it, because some very reasonable people took a close look at the story and found it the usual mix of shoehorning vague clues into common elements and calling it a match, ignoring all evidence that doesn't fit, and finally sweeping conclusions based on nothing but wishful thinking. She certainly believes she's telling the truth. That is not the same as something being true. Just do a quick google and you'll find a few skeptical websites that cover it in detail.

    If you want to believe in reincarnation of some sort, it's best left as a matter of faith. No story from anyone or any researcher, in spite of what true believers say, point to anything more likely than our ability to use fuzzy thinking to fool ourselves. We want it to be true, so we look for evidence for it. If you were a Christian, you'd find stories just as compelling about people with visions of Heaven.

    Despite the acute — and not conventionally-orientated — analysis, by Buddhists, of the nature of beings, I am trying to make a case for some kind of "person" (as the ordinary human being would see it) surviving death, not just a collection of moral (or immoral) traits.
    I think that's a good start. Here's the question I start with. Why are you looking to outside authorities for evidence of personal reincarnation, when you have yourself. If reincarnation is the rule, then you are the reincarnation of multiple lives. Even if, at the most, you manage to find a few fuzzy memories of a previous life, are you that person from back then? Or are you a unique person in this life? What is it that makes a person?

    What was your original face before you were born?

  • DharmakaraDharmakara Veteran
    edited May 2012
    Cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker wrote a seminal work in 1973 called "The Denial of Death". In it, he suggested that all of our social structures are about protecting us from death anxiety. that all organized religions address that anxiety by promising us some form of afterlife or rebirth --- kind of sums it up in a nut shell.

    Death anxiety (thanatophobia) is defined as a feeling of dread, apprehension or solicitude (anxiety) when one thinks of the process of dying, or ceasing to be or what happens after death. Death is defined as the state of non-being, the termination of biological life


  • JohnGJohnG Veteran
    ....And things like that are hard to explain with a belief in rebirth.
    The best thing is to simply NOT try to explain them.

    Where does it get you, other than entrenched in more questioning and confusion?
    Now I understand what you mean federica; Thank you for those ideas you mentioned on my postin, which I believe applies here to :D. Quandarius, I stressed over the same thoughts; and came to understand, what will happen, will happen. How much say we have in this, we'll see when we cross. So, up untill that time; enjoy life's lessons. :D
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    @person I've read that the notion of the Bardo does come from Bon. That much of the material in the Tibetan Book of the Dead isn't from Tibetan Buddhism, it's from Bon, it's a Bon text that a Western scholar discovered and translated.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    Bardo can be seen in the here and now. You see it in meditation as you conjure up a world with a little hint of a memory. The whole world is created by a certain perfume and a little of this and a little of that and all the sudden your mind is colored. So in each meditation it's all bardos. Another way of thinking of it. And samadhi is just the minds clarity revealing itself. There isn't THE samadhi rather there are (ungrasped) infinity of samadhis.
  • DharmakaraDharmakara Veteran
    edited May 2012
    I've read that the notion of the Bardo does come from Bon. That much of the material in the Tibetan Book of the Dead isn't from Tibetan Buddhism, it's from Bon, it's a Bon text that a Western scholar discovered and translated.
    It's a bit off-topic, but have you had a chance to read "The Tibetan Book of the Dead:
    A Biography" by Donald Lopez?

    You can find an interview in regard to it here:

    http://rorotoko.com/interview/20110511_donald_lopez_on_tibetan_book_of_dead_biography/

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker wrote a seminal work in 1973 called "The Denial of Death". In it, he suggested that all of our social structures are about protecting us from death anxiety. that all organized religions address that anxiety by promising us some form of afterlife or rebirth --- kind of sums it up in a nut shell.
    But it's clear from the suttas that the Buddha taught about a cycle of births in different realms. Do you think he made this stuff up in order to make people feel less anxious?
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    And that phenomenon of folk beliefs influencing Buddhist practice and beliefs is not at all uncommon across the Buddhist world.
    Yes, and Buddhism is currently adapting to Western materialism. ;)
  • DharmakaraDharmakara Veteran
    edited May 2012
    But it's clear from the suttas that the Buddha taught about a cycle of births in different realms. Do you think he made this stuff up in order to make people feel less anxious?
    The Buddha also believed that the earth was "supported by water which is supported by air which is in turn supported by space," that "when a great wind blows, this stirs up the water and because of the stirring-up of the water the earth quakes” (D.II,107) --- it's not so much that the Buddha was mistaken in that regard when it came to earthquakes, but the fact that he could only understand his world from within its confines as it existed, within that context.

    It's certainly not a case of him having made up any teachings to make people feel less anxious, but that clinging to such teachings certainly has that as an end result.

    "'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

    "'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

    "'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

    "'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both ways.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

    "One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now.'" (AN 3.65)





  • QuandariusQuandarius Explorer
    Cinorjer May 12 said:

    Oh, Jenny Cockell. In fact, a reasonable person should doubt it, because some very reasonable people took a close look at the story and found it the usual mix of shoehorning vague clues into common elements and calling it a match. ... Just do a quick google and you'll find a few skeptical websites that cover it in detail.

    Thanks for your comments, also this information, Cinorjer. It's the most obvious thing to do, yet I did not think of looking up Jenny Cockell on Google! I will do that. Thanks, also, to everyone else that put their oar in. I take note of it all.

    And by the way, I note that I spelt lama incorrectly. Llamas are not Tibetan — they are South American, aren't they??
  • DaltheJigsawDaltheJigsaw Mountain View Veteran
    Cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker wrote a seminal work in 1973 called "The Denial of Death". In it, he suggested that all of our social structures are about protecting us from death anxiety. that all organized religions address that anxiety by promising us some form of afterlife or rebirth --- kind of sums it up in a nut shell.
    But it's clear from the suttas that the Buddha taught about a cycle of births in different realms. Do you think he made this stuff up in order to make people feel less anxious?
    Interesting thought.
  • DaltheJigsawDaltheJigsaw Mountain View Veteran
    Cinorjer May 12 said:

    Oh, Jenny Cockell. In fact, a reasonable person should doubt it, because some very reasonable people took a close look at the story and found it the usual mix of shoehorning vague clues into common elements and calling it a match. ... Just do a quick google and you'll find a few skeptical websites that cover it in detail.

    Thanks for your comments, also this information, Cinorjer. It's the most obvious thing to do, yet I did not think of looking up Jenny Cockell on Google! I will do that. Thanks, also, to everyone else that put their oar in. I take note of it all.

    And by the way, I note that I spelt lama incorrectly. Llamas are not Tibetan — they are South American, aren't they??
    Care to share a few resources that you would suggest?
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    The Buddha also believed that the earth was "supported by water which is supported by air which is in turn supported by space," that "when a great wind blows, this stirs up the water and because of the stirring-up of the water the earth quakes” (D.II,107) --- it's not so much that the Buddha was mistaken in that regard when it came to earthquakes, but the fact that he could only understand his world from within its confines as it existed, within that context.
    Its important here to understand the 5 elements as being a metaphorical understanding of the make up of the universe. Water being the fluid, flowing aspects of life; so like characteristic of a plant vine winding its way up a tree, or even mental or emotional tendencies towards adaptation and change. Wind is the growing or expansive nature of things. Space is the immaterial aspect of the world, so like spirit or thought or creativity, etc.

    I'll leave it to you to try to interpret the above passage, I'm not sure it makes any more sense but the elements in Buddhism shouldn't be taken literally.
  • DharmakaraDharmakara Veteran
    edited May 2012
    @person: Not sure if a metaphysical understanding applies when examining the context in which it was presented, especially since this was only one of eight circumstances mentioned by the Buddha as a cause of earthquakes.

    The Ven. Shravasti Dhammika is of the opinion that the Buddha was attempting to give a naturalistic explanation for such phenomena, but there's nothing "naturalistic" about the other circumstances mentioned, including the belief that humans could also develop psychic powers to cause earthquakes --- it just doesn't pass the litmus test of critical thinking.



  • DharmakaraDharmakara Veteran
    edited May 2012
    Oh, I'm bad --- misread "metaphorical" as "metaphysical" LOL

    With that said, I believe my argument above still stands when compared to the over-all circumstances that were believed to cause earthquakes, especially since metaphors can also be erroneous, irrelevant, deceptive, and misleading.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    But it's clear from the suttas that the Buddha taught about a cycle of births in different realms. Do you think he made this stuff up in order to make people feel less anxious?
    It's certainly not a case of him having made up any teachings to make people feel less anxious, but that clinging to such teachings certainly has that as an end result.

    Wouldn't a belief in rebirth make one less anxious about death?

  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    But it's clear from the suttas that the Buddha taught about a cycle of births in different realms. Do you think he made this stuff up in order to make people feel less anxious?
    The Buddha also believed that the earth was "supported by water which is supported by air which is in turn supported by space," that "when a great wind blows, this stirs up the water and because of the stirring-up of the water the earth quakes” (D.II,107) ---

    Which could be correct when you investigate what is meant by earth, water, air, etc. When he spoke of earth, he was not actually speaking of actual earth but rather all physical forms that has earth like properties and how these properties are perceived by the senses. When speaking of water, he was not actually speaking of H2O, but rather all physical forms that have water like properties as perceived by the senses.

    The Earth element (pa.thavi dhaatu) = solidity
    The Water element (aapo dhaatu) = adhesion
    The Fire element (tejo dhaatu) = heat
    The Wind element (vaayo dhaatu) = motion

    So replacing "wind" with the activity of "motion", and this motion stirs up "adhesion", one could say that this is what causes earthquakes. Is there a particular scripture that describes that humans can cause earthquakes via psychic powers? I don't recall seeing that but I certainly have not read all of them. :)

  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    @person: Not sure if a metaphysical understanding applies when examining the context in which it was presented, especially since this was only one of eight circumstances mentioned by the Buddha as a cause of earthquakes.

    The Ven. Shravasti Dhammika is of the opinion that the Buddha was attempting to give a naturalistic explanation for such phenomena, but there's nothing "naturalistic" about the other circumstances mentioned, including the belief that humans could also develop psychic powers to cause earthquakes --- it just doesn't pass the litmus test of critical thinking.

    Oh, I'm bad --- misread "metaphorical" as "metaphysical" LOL

    With that said, I believe my argument above still stands when compared to the over-all circumstances that were believed to cause earthquakes, especially since metaphors can also be erroneous, irrelevant, deceptive, and misleading.
    Maybe the explanation still doesn't fit, but my point was just that the 5 elements in Buddhism aren't to be taken literally. They refer to other ideas like @seeker242 said above.

    I also have to disagree with the notion of certain 'mystical' elements of Buddhism not being a naturalistic explanation. Ideas such as siddhis, karma, rebirth are naturalistic explanations what they aren't is physicalistic. The modern version of naturalistic doesn't include such things as they aren't proven scientifically so I'm not saying you have to believe them but they are explained as operating according to regular laws and not some divine intention.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    --- it just doesn't pass the litmus test of critical thinking.

    Critical thinking has it's limitations.
    ;)
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran


    Wouldn't a belief in rebirth make one less anxious about death?

    No

  • I'm not sure if a person's actual personality or what have you survives rebirth. Hell, I don't even know if we are actually reborn, let alone on this planet in this universe, in this dimension. All things are possible.

    So, like others said, until I die I won't know for sure. I'll just keep living life until I get there.
  • --- it just doesn't pass the litmus test of critical thinking.

    Critical thinking has it's limitations.
    ;)
    Especially when one is clinging to something :)
  • DharmakaraDharmakara Veteran
    edited May 2012


    Which could be correct when you investigate what is meant by earth, water, air, etc. When he spoke of earth, he was not actually speaking of actual earth but rather all physical forms that has earth like properties and how these properties are perceived by the senses. When speaking of water, he was not actually speaking of H2O, but rather all physical forms that have water like properties as perceived by the senses.

    The Earth element (pa.thavi dhaatu) = solidity
    The Water element (aapo dhaatu) = adhesion
    The Fire element (tejo dhaatu) = heat
    The Wind element (vaayo dhaatu) = motion

    So replacing "wind" with the activity of "motion", and this motion stirs up "adhesion", one could say that this is what causes earthquakes. Is there a particular scripture that describes that humans can cause earthquakes via psychic powers? I don't recall seeing that but I certainly have not read all of them. :)

    But was this what the Buddha was referring to or is it just a way for practitioners to continue to cling to something?


  • Maybe the explanation still doesn't fit, but my point was just that the 5 elements in Buddhism aren't to be taken literally. They refer to other ideas like @seeker242 said above.

    I also have to disagree with the notion of certain 'mystical' elements of Buddhism not being a naturalistic explanation. Ideas such as siddhis, karma, rebirth are naturalistic explanations what they aren't is physicalistic. The modern version of naturalistic doesn't include such things as they aren't proven scientifically so I'm not saying you have to believe them but they are explained as operating according to regular laws and not some divine intention.
    Unfortunately, the same thing occurs in all religions, including Christianity. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD - which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

    In other words it's poor apologetics, the worse kind of example of dialectical parlance.

    For example, let's return to the OP subject of question --- I neither accept nor deny the doctrine of rebirth because it's of no consequence if one's practice is in the present moment, the here and now. I could waste my time and practice by metaphorically stating that rebirth exists in the cycle of my breath, with each one, but that too would be of no consequence.


  • I'm not sure if a person's actual personality or what have you survives rebirth. Hell, I don't even know if we are actually reborn, let alone on this planet in this universe, in this dimension. All things are possible.

    So, like others said, until I die I won't know for sure. I'll just keep living life until I get there.
    Correct --- live in the present moment and practice.

  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    edited May 2012
    Cinorjer May 12 said:

    Oh, Jenny Cockell. In fact, a reasonable person should doubt it, because some very reasonable people took a close look at the story and found it the usual mix of shoehorning vague clues into common elements and calling it a match. ... Just do a quick google and you'll find a few skeptical websites that cover it in detail.

    Thanks for your comments, also this information, Cinorjer. It's the most obvious thing to do, yet I did not think of looking up Jenny Cockell on Google! I will do that. Thanks, also, to everyone else that put their oar in. I take note of it all.

    And by the way, I note that I spelt lama incorrectly. Llamas are not Tibetan — they are South American, aren't they??
    Care to share a few resources that you would suggest?
    Oh, one of my usual sources, CSI, has an article on her case that sums up the problem with trying to pin down what is true from what she believes to be true in her story http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/case_of_reincarnation_reexamined


  • Floating_AbuFloating_Abu Veteran
    edited May 2012
    I would not diss life after life, but I would also temper it with how useful is it for your current life.

    aura, one of our old (ex) members spoke of it strongly and I have no reason to doubt what she told us: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/comment/247801#Comment_247801

    Well wishes,
    Abu
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    edited May 2012


    Maybe the explanation still doesn't fit, but my point was just that the 5 elements in Buddhism aren't to be taken literally. They refer to other ideas like @seeker242 said above.

    I also have to disagree with the notion of certain 'mystical' elements of Buddhism not being a naturalistic explanation. Ideas such as siddhis, karma, rebirth are naturalistic explanations what they aren't is physicalistic. The modern version of naturalistic doesn't include such things as they aren't proven scientifically so I'm not saying you have to believe them but they are explained as operating according to regular laws and not some divine intention.
    Unfortunately, the same thing occurs in all religions, including Christianity. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD - which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

    In other words it's poor apologetics, the worse kind of example of dialectical parlance.

    For example, let's return to the OP subject of question --- I neither accept nor deny the doctrine of rebirth because it's of no consequence if one's practice is in the present moment, the here and now. I could waste my time and practice by metaphorically stating that rebirth exists in the cycle of my breath, with each one, but that too would be of no consequence.


    The 5 elements in Chinese medicine can be traced, in written form, back to somewhere between 100 and 400 BC using the same metaphorical definitions. So I don't think its accurate to call it apologetics when the same definitions have been in use for so long. So what is written is what is meant, you're just defining it differently than what it originally meant.

  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran


    Which could be correct when you investigate what is meant by earth, water, air, etc. When he spoke of earth, he was not actually speaking of actual earth but rather all physical forms that has earth like properties and how these properties are perceived by the senses. When speaking of water, he was not actually speaking of H2O, but rather all physical forms that have water like properties as perceived by the senses.

    The Earth element (pa.thavi dhaatu) = solidity
    The Water element (aapo dhaatu) = adhesion
    The Fire element (tejo dhaatu) = heat
    The Wind element (vaayo dhaatu) = motion

    So replacing "wind" with the activity of "motion", and this motion stirs up "adhesion", one could say that this is what causes earthquakes. Is there a particular scripture that describes that humans can cause earthquakes via psychic powers? I don't recall seeing that but I certainly have not read all of them. :)

    But was this what the Buddha was referring to or is it just a way for practitioners to continue to cling to something?
    The Buddha never taught clinging, he only taught unclinging. He explains clinging as the source of suffering, what is being clung to and how, and then explains how to stop clinging thereby stopping suffering. The elements are a description of what is being clung to.

  • --- it just doesn't pass the litmus test of critical thinking.

    Critical thinking has it's limitations.
    ;)
    Like what?
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    --- it just doesn't pass the litmus test of critical thinking.

    Critical thinking has it's limitations.
    ;)
    Like what?
    I kind of agree with Cam. No, not every decision made through critical thinking ends up being the right decision. But, Dharmakara, are you suggesting a lack of critical thinking is wiser?

  • DharmakaraDharmakara Veteran
    edited May 2012
    The Buddha never taught clinging, he only taught unclinging. He explains clinging as the source of suffering, what is being clung to and how, and then explains how to stop clinging thereby stopping suffering. The elements are a description of what is being clung to.

    I would have to agree :)

  • DharmakaraDharmakara Veteran
    edited May 2012
    Hi Vinlyn. Certainly I didn't mean that the lack of critical thought is wiser --- sorry for any misunderstanding. What I meant is that critical thought is necessary, that sometimes there's not enough of it.

    Although you're very correct in that not every decision made through critical thinking ends up being the right decision, can we say the same when critical thought is not applied?

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Certainly I didn't mean that the lack of critical thought is wiser --- sorry for any misunderstanding. What I meant is that critical thought is necessary, that sometimes there's not enough of it.
    Could you say what you mean by critical thoughI think it deI agree, but
    --- it just doesn't pass the litmus test of critical thinking.

    Critical thinking has it's limitations.
    ;)
    Like what?
    It is never completely objective.

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    For example, let's return to the OP subject of question --- I neither accept nor deny the doctrine of rebirth because it's of no consequence if one's practice is in the present moment, the here and now.
    Same here, but I do wonder why the Buddha taught all that stuff about kamma, rebirth and the realms if it's of no relevance to daily practice.
  • It is never completely objective.
    It, at it's most simplistic, is still more objective than the alternative of accepting without a critical analysis.

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    It is never completely objective.
    It, at it's most simplistic, is still more objective than the alternative of accepting without a critical analysis.

    I'm not convinced our opinions are all that useful. ;)
  • It is never completely objective.
    It, at it's most simplistic, is still more objective than the alternative of accepting without a critical analysis.

    I'm not convinced our opinions are all that useful. ;)
    Someone doesn't understand the methodology of a critical analysis if they're involving their opinions

    :rolleyes:
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    It is never completely objective.
    It, at it's most simplistic, is still more objective than the alternative of accepting without a critical analysis.

    I'm not convinced our opinions are all that useful. ;)
    Someone doesn't understand the methodology of a critical analysis if they're involving their opinions

    :rolleyes:

    I've never seen an analysis devoid of opinion.
  • DharmakaraDharmakara Veteran
    edited May 2012
    For example, let's return to the OP subject of question --- I neither accept nor deny the doctrine of rebirth because it's of no consequence if one's practice is in the present moment, the here and now.
    Same here, but I do wonder why the Buddha taught all that stuff about kamma, rebirth and the realms if it's of no relevance to daily practice.
    You might find excerpt below worth reading --- it's from an article by Bhikkhu Sugandha that appeared in the Lumbini Magazine:

    Not only has the teaching on rebirth a value for those who would see some justice in this world, it also has a pragmatic application. When teaching those who took rebirth for granted, Buddha strengthened their belief, but with others who were sceptical and asked questions, instead of asking them to accept rebirth as true, Buddha employed a ‘wager argument’. In this way he brought into focus the value of this teaching by stressing its practical benefits, here and now.

    Clarification of the issue of rebirth may be done in the words of a famous Buddhist simile from the questions asked by King Milinda (Menander in Greek) of the sage Nagasena:

    Rebirth is by the latter compared to the changes which a single jug of milk may undergo. To begin with there is just milk, this changes to curds, these to butter, from butter comes ghee and from ghee, the skim of ghee, and such processes may develop one from another, infinitely. Each stage is compared to one birth and all the time from the stage of being milk until it becomes ghee-skim, there is no underlying entity which actually goes unchanged—there are here only processes at work, unstable processes in the process of further change. The position of man, if he had but a little humility to see it, is the same: processes constantly change, react and change.

    From these explanations we can see that the issue of rebirth is not related with being a Buddhist. This is further confirmed by Buddha’s teaching on five qualities of a good Buddhist. To be a good Buddhist lay disciple, Buddha said, one should be: 1) Endowed with faith (arising from wisdom). 2) Have good conduct (keep the precepts). 3) Not to be superstitious but believing in deeds (karma). 4) Not to seek for the gift-worthy outside of the Buddha’s teaching (to bring Buddha’s teachings into practice), and 5) To do his first service in a Buddhist cause (to endeavour adhering to Buddhism).

    Therefore, if anyone follows these virtues one can be regarded as a good Buddhist without believing in rebirth. However, as a Buddhist essentially one must believe in the theory of karma. Following is a verse the simplifying the theory of karma which appears in the Buddhist texts:

    According to the seed that is sown,
    So is the fruit ye reap therefrom.
    The doer of good will gather good,
    The doer of evil, evil reaps.
    Sown is the seed and planted well;
    Thous shalt enjoy the fruit thereof.



    You can read the complete article here:
    http://www.lumbini.org.uk/nov_1998_4.html


  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Hi Vinlyn. Certainly I didn't mean that the lack of critical thought is wiser --- sorry for any misunderstanding. What I meant is that critical thought is necessary, that sometimes there's not enough of it.

    Although you're very correct in that not every decision made through critical thinking ends up being the right decision, can we say the same when critical thought is not applied?

    Agreed.

Sign In or Register to comment.