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.
My daughter grew up in a peaceful environment and has one of the most violent tempers I've ever had the misfortune to come across.
Definitely not a learned behaviour.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
No, I was just being funny; but there will always be, in Human nature, the exception that proves the rule. It's all very well conducting research into the developmental stages of children, but each child is a unique individual, and there is much at play with regard to an infant's development, not the least of which is whether the child is actually a welcome addition or not.... There are so many factors, seen and unseen, which are an aspect of a child's progress, that, while it is a sound premise to chart and catalogue characteristics and categorise behaviours, there will always be the unforeseen, the unexpected, the surprising... And scientists do very well to be aware of this.
There is much in Science that was once established Theory, which has subsequently been proven to be an error...
And that's ok. I'm open to all of that.
I don't discount scientific studies. But then, Scientists are paid to keep testing...
It's better to know than to just believe...So I'll have to wait and see...
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited June 2019
@federica said:
No, I was just being funny; but there will always be, in Human nature, the exception that proves the rule. It's all very well conducting research into the developmental stages of children, but each child is a unique individual, and there is much at play with regard to an infant's development, not the least of which is whether the child is actually a welcome addition or not.... There are so many factors, seen and unseen, which are an aspect of a child's progress, that, while it is a sound premise to chart and catalogue characteristics and categorise behaviours, there will always be the unforeseen, the unexpected, the surprising... And scientists do very well to be aware of this.
There is much in Science that was once established Theory, which has subsequently been proven to be an error...
And that's ok. I'm open to all of that.
I don't discount scientific studies. But then, Scientists are paid to keep testing...
Well, parenting does matter. These are just about personality, if they're extroverted or introverted, how emotionally stable they are, conscientiousness, if they're more interested in things/ideas or people. Whether a child grows up feeling loved, whether their gifts and abilities are appreciated and developed, how well educated, socialized, etc, etc. are all still down to environment.
@Kerome said:
So yes, rebirth does tend to be seen as an important tenet of Buddhism. I’ve even seen people write that what Stephen Batchelor believes is no longer buddhism, because of his stance on this subject.
But I still find I have questions around rebirth. For example, if our memory and our personal inclinations don’t survive death, then how much of “us” is left? Can you really call you still you after losing that, or is what wanders the bardo no longer really yourself?
Sorry to go back so far, but I haven’t read Stephen Batchelor yet. What does he think about rebirth?
I also wonder if we’re at risk here of creating a view of not-self that is just as pernicious as a view of self. The Buddha never revealed whether there was an essential self, only that clinging to impermanent things as self would always lead to dukkha.
The view ‘I have no self’ is just as much a doctrine of self as the view ‘I have a self.’
-Thanissaro Bikkhu
5
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@Kerome said:
So yes, rebirth does tend to be seen as an important tenet of Buddhism. I’ve even seen people write that what Stephen Batchelor believes is no longer buddhism, because of his stance on this subject.
But I still find I have questions around rebirth. For example, if our memory and our personal inclinations don’t survive death, then how much of “us” is left? Can you really call you still you after losing that, or is what wanders the bardo no longer really yourself?
Sorry to go back so far, but I haven’t read Stephen Batchelor yet. What does he think about rebirth?
His basic viewpoint on rebirth is that of agnosticism, he says he does not know one way or the other. He also considers this stance a good “middle way”. It’s also more or less where I have ended up, acknowledging what the Pāli Canon says, but with a note that it cannot be verified.
Well, parenting does matter. These are just about personality, if they're extroverted or introverted, how emotionally stable they are, conscientiousness, if they're more interested in things/ideas or people. Whether a child grows up feeling loved, whether their gifts and abilities are appreciated and developed, how well educated, socialized, etc, etc. are all still down to environment.
As a parent I disagree it's still down to environment - but each to their own.
I also studied and got High Distinctions in Childhood Development. So I've read some of those studies and find I don't fully agree in comparison to studies we did as well. But it's a big field with no definitive answers.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I'm not entirely clear on what @person means by 'environment'...
@Kerome said:
So yes, rebirth does tend to be seen as an important tenet of Buddhism. I’ve even seen people write that what Stephen Batchelor believes is no longer buddhism, because of his stance on this subject.
But I still find I have questions around rebirth. For example, if our memory and our personal inclinations don’t survive death, then how much of “us” is left? Can you really call you still you after losing that, or is what wanders the bardo no longer really yourself?
Sorry to go back so far, but I haven’t read Stephen Batchelor yet. What does he think about rebirth?
I also wonder if we’re at risk here of creating a view of not-self that is just as pernicious as a view of self. The Buddha never revealed whether there was an essential self, only that clinging to impermanent things as self would always lead to dukkha.
The view ‘I have no self’ is just as much a doctrine of self as the view ‘I have a self.’
-Thanissaro Bikkhu
ALL THAT ARISES PASSES AWAY.
"All conditioned phenomena are impermanent"; when one sees this with Insight-wisdom, one becomes weary of dukkha (i.e., the khandhas). This is the Path to Purity.
Everything else is just commentary
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited July 2019
I think one has to view the Pāli Canon in the context of its times. It contains all kinds of references to Mount Meru being the centre of the universe and the sun and planets circling around it, six realms for rebirth and 31 realms in the cosmos, people flying, teleporting, making copies of themselves and walking on water. It seems all kinds of talk of miracles was more easily accepted in those days.
But the scientific revolution in thinking has led to a more sober age. We have investigated all kinds of claims of psychic powers, and nothing has come of it. Perhaps the only things that remain are claims of clairvoyance and special knowledge, and of energy healing.
It puts me in mind of modern attempts to do levitation. This was filmed and put on YouTube. There would be monks sitting on a wooden platform, meditating but not moving a centimetre off the surface. I recall also some instances of someone practicing Transcendental Meditation swearing that they felt they had levitated, but being informed by onlookers that they hadn’t moved.
Stephen Batchelor may go a bit far when he says that he considers karma and rebirth to be features of Indian culture at that time, but he is not entirely wrong in indicating that those two parts of doctrine go against ehipassiko, which is an almost scientific view. In a way mankind is still freeing itself from superstition, and all the writings that are from those times contain elements of that thinking.
3
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited July 2019
@federica said:
I'm not entirely clear on what @person means by 'environment'...
Learned behavior, basically anything that doesn't come from biology.
Well, parenting does matter. These are just about personality, if they're extroverted or introverted, how emotionally stable they are, conscientiousness, if they're more interested in things/ideas or people. Whether a child grows up feeling loved, whether their gifts and abilities are appreciated and developed, how well educated, socialized, etc, etc. are all still down to environment.
As a parent I disagree it's still down to environment - but each to their own.
I also studied and got High Distinctions in Childhood Development. So I've read some of those studies and find I don't fully agree in comparison to studies we did as well. But it's a big field with no definitive answers.
The line of what is due to environment and what is due to biology isn't clearly drawn. But to each there own isn't the way it works in science, there are definitive answers.
At any rate environment does matter, but there is a real danger of harm when we think we can change things about people that are fairly hardwired. Highly introverted people can learn social skills, but they will still be introverted. Highly agreeable people can learn to take a stand and speak up for themselves, but they will still naturally be agreeable. I think its better to understand the strengths of these sorts of traits and seek to draw them out rather than saying something like extroversion is better so we just need to change introverts and "bring them out of their shell". As an introvert myself I would say extroverts need to learn to appreciate the richness of their inner world.
My main point in saying something about this isn't that its all nature, its that there were a couple statements saying it was virtually all nurture, and I think the science says quite definitively that isn't the case.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Kerome said:
So yes, rebirth does tend to be seen as an important tenet of Buddhism. I’ve even seen people write that what Stephen Batchelor believes is no longer buddhism, because of his stance on this subject.
But I still find I have questions around rebirth. For example, if our memory and our personal inclinations don’t survive death, then how much of “us” is left? Can you really call you still you after losing that, or is what wanders the bardo no longer really yourself?
Sorry to go back so far, but I haven’t read Stephen Batchelor yet. What does he think about rebirth?
I also wonder if we’re at risk here of creating a view of not-self that is just as pernicious as a view of self. The Buddha never revealed whether there was an essential self, only that clinging to impermanent things as self would always lead to dukkha.
The view ‘I have no self’ is just as much a doctrine of self as the view ‘I have a self.’
-Thanissaro Bikkhu
It makes me wonder what the Middle way would be here. Whatever it may be I would imagine clinging to it is not the best idea. So besides any doctrine of self what is there?
Maybe the doctrine of not-self. Instead of trying to pin down what the self is, our time is better spent realizing what self is not. It certainly doesn't do much good to act as if we are not here and have no consequence.
Anything we can examine is not self but there is examining going on.
I think we probably have an infinite amount of selves affecting each other through conditionality.
We do seem to be here affecting each other and the 1st NT is that we all suffer so I feel that I am responsible for the actions of this aspect or avatar or whatever and cannot escape their consequences. But then neither can anyone else. If I cause harm, it isn't just me that is affected so I think we can find our morality and ethics in the parts of the teachings that we can examine for ourselves rather than any dogma surrounding rebirth.
I think allowing for the possibility of rebirth is important but I think forming and taking on a belief in something we cannot examine for ourselves goes against the grain.
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
I’d agree with that, @david. For some things it doesn’t matter so much what you believe, but when it’s as core as what happens to us personally after death, then it has a lot of consequence on how you live your life, and it’s a good idea to insist on personally verifiable proof before you take a belief on board.
The Buddha introduced the concept that there is no soul (self) tying the cycle of rebirths, in contrast to themes asserted by various Hindu and Jaina traditions, and this central concept in Buddhism is called anattā; Buddha also affirmed the idea that all compounded things are subject to dissolution at death or anicca.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Kerome said:
I’d agree with that, @david. For some things it doesn’t matter so much what you believe, but when it’s as core as what happens to us personally after death, then it has a lot of consequence on how you live your life, and it’s a good idea to insist on personally verifiable proof before you take a belief on board.
The Buddha introduced the concept that there is no soul (self) tying the cycle of rebirths, in contrast to themes asserted by various Hindu and Jaina traditions, and this central concept in Buddhism is called anattā; Buddha also affirmed the idea that all compounded things are subject to dissolution at death or anicca.
Being cheeky, I can't help but figure that if the conditions are right a compounded thing might re-manifest.
"Master, what happens to us when we die?"
"I don't know."
"But aren't you a master?"
"Not a dead one."
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited July 2019
I came across this today in a Lion’s Roar article by TNH on the doors of liberation...
We think we are born and we have to achieve something before we die. Suppose we draw a line from left to right, representing the course of time. We pick one point—call it Point B—and we call it birth. Someone is born in this moment. We make a birth certificate for this baby, thinking that person exists starting at Point B. But in fact, the child was already there. Even before the moment of conception, the seeds of the child existed in other forms. Point B is a moment of continuation. There is no beginning.
We think there will be a moment when we stop being. On the imaginary line we have drawn, let’s call it Point D, death. We believe that at birth we passed from nonbeing into being, and we believe that at death we will pass from being back into non-being. Looking deeply into our notions of being and nonbeing, aware of the emptiness and signlessness of all things, we touch the reality of the birthless and deathless nature of all things.
Of course he is right, there is no beginning and no end to our lives. We were present in another form before our birth and will be present in yet another form after our death.
We think we are born and we have to achieve something before we die. Suppose we draw a line from left to right, representing the course of time. We pick one point—call it Point B—and we call it birth. Someone is born in this moment. We make a birth certificate for this baby, thinking that person exists starting at Point B. But in fact, the child was already there. Even before the moment of conception, the seeds of the child existed in other forms. Point B is a moment of continuation. There is no beginning.
You can also argue that there is no person there in the first place.
The same point is made by Zen master Dogen.
There is strictly no rebirth or 'redeath'.
Only birth, birth, birth or death, death, death.
Firewood becomes ash. Ash cannot turn back into firewood again. However, we should not view ash as after and firewood as before. We should know that firewood dwells in the dharma position of firewood and it has its own before and after. Although there is before and after, past and future are cut off. Ash stays at the position of ash and it has its own before and after. As firewood never becomes firewood again after it is burned and becomes ash, after person dies, there is no return to living. However, in buddha dharma, it is a never-changing tradition not to say that life becomes death. Therefore we call it no-arising. It is the laid-down way of buddha's turning the dharma wheel not to say that death becomes life. Therefore, we call it no-perishing. Life is a position at one time; death is also a position at one time. For instance, this is like winter and spring. We don't think that winter becomes spring, and we don't say that spring becomes summer.
A visiting Zen student asked Ajahn Chah, "How old are you? Do you live here all year round?" "I live nowhere," he replied. "There is no place you can find me. I have no age. To have age, you must exist, and to think you exist is already a problem. Don't make problems; then the world has none either. Don't make a self. There's nothing more to say."
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
We think we are born and we have to achieve something before we die. Suppose we draw a line from left to right, representing the course of time. We pick one point—call it Point B—and we call it birth. Someone is born in this moment. We make a birth certificate for this baby, thinking that person exists starting at Point B. But in fact, the child was already there. Even before the moment of conception, the seeds of the child existed in other forms. Point B is a moment of continuation. There is no beginning.
You can also argue that there is no person there in the first place.
The same point is made by Zen master Dogen.
There is strictly no rebirth or 'redeath'.
Only birth, birth, birth or death, death, death.
Firewood becomes ash. Ash cannot turn back into firewood again. However, we should not view ash as after and firewood as before. We should know that firewood dwells in the dharma position of firewood and it has its own before and after. Although there is before and after, past and future are cut off. Ash stays at the position of ash and it has its own before and after. As firewood never becomes firewood again after it is burned and becomes ash, after person dies, there is no return to living. However, in buddha dharma, it is a never-changing tradition not to say that life becomes death. Therefore we call it no-arising. It is the laid-down way of buddha's turning the dharma wheel not to say that death becomes life. Therefore, we call it no-perishing. Life is a position at one time; death is also a position at one time. For instance, this is like winter and spring. We don't think that winter becomes spring, and we don't say that spring becomes summer.
A visiting Zen student asked Ajahn Chah, "How old are you? Do you live here all year round?" "I live nowhere," he replied. "There is no place you can find me. I have no age. To have age, you must exist, and to think you exist is already a problem. Don't make problems; then the world has none either. Don't make a self. There's nothing more to say."
I always get a kick out of that one. That is what it is to stink of Zen.
I hope that didn't sound too rude, however, putting myself in place of the student I find the answer more rude than clever.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited July 2019
@pegembara said:
You can also argue that there is no person there in the first place.
You can, but it’s a bit superficial don’t you think? It’s clear that at the very least conception is a moment of discontinuity, where at a certain point during growing up you gain an awareness of memory and a measure of self-awareness. This isn’t continuous during our lives, when we sleep it changes to be present at a very low level. I’d say there still was some awareness because loud noises will shock you awake, but of a different type. Perhaps that is an answer, that the quality of awareness changes at birth and at death.
I dreamt last night, but during my dreams I didn’t have access to my memories, or a sense of being who I usually was. I did things for very superficial reasons, I was trying to catch a ferry to go to an island. So there was a goal and a desire, but where these things came from was a mystery, I had perceptions but not many thoughts.
I'm under the impression that if one has some experiential understanding of the processing/workings of the aggregated self ( meditative for example) then one will have a better ( dare I say easily) time conceptualising ( on a relative level) rebirth taking place...
The dilemma so it would seem comes because of our clinging and grasping to the concept of a more permanently abiding self,( in all its self awareness glory) that for the most part we are conditioned to 'believe' in...( force of 'habit' so to speak...which I should add looks to be self generating go figure )...
I guess the old somewhat paradoxical idea of letting go is a sticking point... ...Who or what is it that lets go, and what is being let go of ?
I think confusion arises when it comes to trying to understand rebirth purely on the intellectual level and disregarding the intuitive level... Clinging to concepts can and often does become a comfort blanket ...maybe its this comfort blanket that needs to be let go of...:)
Hmm When the intellect ventures into where it does not belong, it becomes lost in its own confusion
But don't throw the baby/intellect out with the bath water...It's like a spring board, it can helps one to get to the next level...
"If you see someone doing something negative, think of all the suffering he is accumulating for himself and pray that, rather than his being reborn in he lower realms, the results of his negative actions may come upon you instead; and dedicate to him the results of your own positive actions.
To practice in such a way also helps to eradicate your belief in a truly existing self. For, finally, your true enemies are not some ruthless people in power, some fierce raiders or merciless competitors, who constantly harass you, take everything you have, or threaten you with legal proceedings.
Your real enemy is your belief in a self."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche - Heart of Compassion - p 110, Shechen Publications
@pegembara said:
You can also argue that there is no person there in the first place.
You can, but it’s a bit superficial don’t you think? It’s clear that at the very least conception is a moment of discontinuity, where at a certain point during growing up you gain an awareness of memory and a measure of self-awareness. This isn’t continuous during our lives, when we sleep it changes to be present at a very low level. I’d say there still was some awareness because loud noises will shock you awake, but of a different type. Perhaps that is an answer, that the quality of awareness changes at birth and at death.
I dreamt last night, but during my dreams I didn’t have access to my memories, or a sense of being who I usually was. I did things for very superficial reasons, I was trying to catch a ferry to go to an island. So there was a goal and a desire, but where these things came from was a mystery, I had perceptions but not many thoughts.
Shakespeare was pointing to the same thing and you wouldn't call him superficial would you?
"If you see someone doing something negative, think of all the suffering he is accumulating for himself and pray that, rather than his being reborn in he lower realms, the results of his negative actions may come upon you instead; and dedicate to him the results of your own positive actions.
To practice in such a way also helps to eradicate your belief in a truly existing self. For, finally, your true enemies are not some ruthless people in power, some fierce raiders or merciless competitors, who constantly harass you, take everything you have, or threaten you with legal proceedings.
Your real enemy is your belief in a self."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche - Heart of Compassion - p 110, Shechen Publications
You can also think there is ultimately no good or evil person, only good and evil deeds. A suicide bomber does what he does because of past causes and conditions. Driven by ignorance unskillful actions result. To practice in this way is to eradicate the false belief that a self exists. Your real enemy is ignorance or avijja.
5
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
"If you see someone doing something negative, think of all the suffering he is accumulating for himself and pray that, rather than his being reborn in he lower realms, the results of his negative actions may come upon you instead; and dedicate to him the results of your own positive actions.
To practice in such a way also helps to eradicate your belief in a truly existing self. For, finally, your true enemies are not some ruthless people in power, some fierce raiders or merciless competitors, who constantly harass you, take everything you have, or threaten you with legal proceedings.
Your real enemy is your belief in a self."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche - Heart of Compassion - p 110, Shechen Publications
You can also think there is ultimately no good or evil person, only good and evil deeds. A suicide bomber does what he does because of past causes and conditions. Driven by ignorance unskillful actions result. To practice in this way is to eradicate the false belief that a self exists. Your real enemy is ignorance or avijja.
Nice. That's also a great answer for the thread on how not to hate Nazis or pedophiles. I had to take a pass on that thread for lack of decent wording but I'd have put it like that if the words came.
"If you see someone doing something negative, think of all the suffering he is accumulating for himself and pray that, rather than his being reborn in he lower realms, the results of his negative actions may come upon you instead; and dedicate to him the results of your own positive actions.
To practice in such a way also helps to eradicate your belief in a truly existing self. For, finally, your true enemies are not some ruthless people in power, some fierce raiders or merciless competitors, who constantly harass you, take everything you have, or threaten you with legal proceedings.
Your real enemy is your belief in a self."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche - Heart of Compassion - p 110, Shechen Publications
You can also think there is ultimately no good or evil person, only good and evil deeds. A suicide bomber does what he does because of past causes and conditions. Driven by ignorance unskillful actions result. To practice in this way is to eradicate the false belief that a self exists. Your real enemy is ignorance or avijja.
Nice. That's also a great answer for the thread on how not to hate Nazis or pedophiles. I had to take a pass on that thread for lack of decent wording but I'd have put it like that if the words came.
I also think this is true for the most part. Some people give me pause and make me wonder, but many of the most evil deeds were done by people thinking they were doing the right thing, with unskillful actions turning into unskillful habits that make it difficult for them to do skillful things. They have become conditioned to think and act in ways that cause harm, but were not born evil demons. They're still people who may have been and done differently things were different. Those "evil beings" we see aren't concrete realities, although their actions are very real and have real effects.
Forgive "them" for "they" know not what "they" are doing.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@pegembara said:
Forgive "them" for "they" know not what "they" are doing.
Which has its origins in the Bible and believe me, they knew exactly what they were doing.
What Jesus meant was "Hey Dad, don't lose your temper, they have no idea who dey be messin' wiv.."
God, who had a mind all of his own (have YOU ever tried telling an Omnipotent God, what to do? Doesn't work, right?) decided to demonstrate the extent of his wrath by reacting in a very earthquakitory way...
Which tells me that the Old Feller was probably a bit touched in the head, because it was he who decided his son should die, in the first place. D'uh...
For millennia, it was assumed that either his own kin (The Jews) were either entirely, or partly responsible for his crucifixion, but that fact has now been discredited, and actually denounced by the RC Church Holy Council.
The conclusion is, that the Romans are with almost a 100% certainty, entirely to blame.
Christ was not the only Jew to have been killed in this way. (Anyone who's ever watched 'Spartacus' will know that...) The romans crucified them in their thousands.
The reasons they did so was because of a Political threat to a key location of their Empire.
Religious cause per se, had nothing to do with it.
The Romans had an agenda.
And you ask any so-called evil wrong-doer what they're doing it for, they will respond with an agenda. One close to their heart, one they feel strongly about. Passionate. Personal.
An completely wrong, form others' perspectives.
But an agenda of Hate, is based on an inner fear.
The Romans were afraid of losing their hold on an Empire founded on Military Power.
Anyone who acts hatefully, is doing so because they're afraid of a perceived threat to their own 'Power'.
The following is from a Christian page giving an introductory course on Sinning:
The 7 Deadly sins:
Lust – to have an intense desire or need: This is a fear of not being wanted, being rejected, and a fear of loss of control.
Gluttony – excess in eating and drinking: standard fear of going hungry, not having enough..
Greed - excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness: Speaks for itself. We discuss this often, don't we? This silly 'attachment' business...
Laziness – disinclined to activity or exertion: not energetic or vigorous: I see this as a manifestation of Power. The power to be indolent and to permit others to do everything, around them. You can argue, cajole, encourage, plead, suggest, insist a person be less lazy, more proactive, more helpful, and all they will do is dig their heels in, because they can. (I know someone like this...)
Wrath – strong vengeful anger or indignation: Again, a no-brainer...
Envy – painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage: This spells that Fear out, in a very articulate way...
Pride - quality or state of being proud – inordinate self esteem: Ego, innit?
But then, I saw this, further down:
What are the seven detestable sins according to the Bible?
“There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him:
Haughty eyes,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked schemes,
Feet that are quick to rush into evil,
A false witness who pours out lies
And a man who stirs up dissension among brothers” (Proverbs 6:16-19).
These, if examined, are all founded on a particular fear. It's obviously a more complex matter to define the specific 'fear' of each category, but I'm sure you can all get there without help, because you're all probably familiar with an experience of a good number of them.
I know I am....
@federica said:
Actually, it is proven that threes have a level of basic consciousness in that they definitely communicate with one another, and can calculate according to their surroundings and fellow species of tree, whether their seeds should be predominantly male or female... so... yeah. pedantry rules, ok?
I'd agree with @pegembara, all the pain of the world comes from belief in the Sakkaya-ditthi and the belief that it's thoguhts and feelings are the true "self". I was sitting the other night and had a minor insight into how happiness and pain are the same thing both are tainted by the three marks of existence. Peace is true happiness not joy or pleasure. As for rebirth I've decided to take the view that if it happens it's fine, if it doesn't that's fine as well.
3
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@federica said:
Actually, it is proven that threes have a level of basic consciousness in that they definitely communicate with one another, and can calculate according to their surroundings and fellow species of tree, whether their seeds should be predominantly male or female... so... yeah. pedantry rules, ok?
threes should be trees, probably.
It might be.... * sniffs *
I seldom make mistakes and even when I'm wrong, I'm right. :P
I was sitting the other night and had a minor insight into how happiness and pain are the same thing both are tainted by the three marks of existence.
Are the Three Marks of Existence related to the Four Hossmen of the Apocalypse?
Tee Hee. Well insighted.
Do not trust what you think, feel or believe mightily? Also do not trust your mistrust?
Aye caramba, existence sure is to be ducked out of ... 🤣
In the words of the Buddha, “I won't be back! I iz all karma'd out!”
For me, going just by my bare rationality, this subject is either very important or of no real importance. If there really is such a thing as transmigration of the soul, then we had better figure out how to get out of it, as we never know what sorts of evils we may have to suffer in the future... (and the evils for an unprepared, unripe soul in this world are legion...). If there is no rebirth, then it is simply a waste of time to lose sleep over it. Maybe my comment is a bit obvious, or maybe not, but those are my 2 cents.
And even if reincarnation has no reality, it has a practical reality, which illusion is just as real as if it were... well, "really real." - so in my mind one would be obliged to lose sleep over it, if it had some "truth" to it....
Comments
My daughter grew up in a peaceful environment and has one of the most violent tempers I've ever had the misfortune to come across.
Definitely not a learned behaviour.
No, I was just being funny; but there will always be, in Human nature, the exception that proves the rule. It's all very well conducting research into the developmental stages of children, but each child is a unique individual, and there is much at play with regard to an infant's development, not the least of which is whether the child is actually a welcome addition or not.... There are so many factors, seen and unseen, which are an aspect of a child's progress, that, while it is a sound premise to chart and catalogue characteristics and categorise behaviours, there will always be the unforeseen, the unexpected, the surprising... And scientists do very well to be aware of this.
There is much in Science that was once established Theory, which has subsequently been proven to be an error...
And that's ok. I'm open to all of that.
I don't discount scientific studies. But then, Scientists are paid to keep testing...
It's better to know than to just believe...So I'll have to wait and see...
Well, parenting does matter. These are just about personality, if they're extroverted or introverted, how emotionally stable they are, conscientiousness, if they're more interested in things/ideas or people. Whether a child grows up feeling loved, whether their gifts and abilities are appreciated and developed, how well educated, socialized, etc, etc. are all still down to environment.
Sorry to go back so far, but I haven’t read Stephen Batchelor yet. What does he think about rebirth?
I also wonder if we’re at risk here of creating a view of not-self that is just as pernicious as a view of self. The Buddha never revealed whether there was an essential self, only that clinging to impermanent things as self would always lead to dukkha.
Here is an article in which he discusses rebirth.
His basic viewpoint on rebirth is that of agnosticism, he says he does not know one way or the other. He also considers this stance a good “middle way”. It’s also more or less where I have ended up, acknowledging what the Pāli Canon says, but with a note that it cannot be verified.
As a parent I disagree it's still down to environment - but each to their own.
I also studied and got High Distinctions in Childhood Development. So I've read some of those studies and find I don't fully agree in comparison to studies we did as well. But it's a big field with no definitive answers.
I'm not entirely clear on what @person means by 'environment'...
ALL THAT ARISES PASSES AWAY.
Everything else is just commentary
I think one has to view the Pāli Canon in the context of its times. It contains all kinds of references to Mount Meru being the centre of the universe and the sun and planets circling around it, six realms for rebirth and 31 realms in the cosmos, people flying, teleporting, making copies of themselves and walking on water. It seems all kinds of talk of miracles was more easily accepted in those days.
But the scientific revolution in thinking has led to a more sober age. We have investigated all kinds of claims of psychic powers, and nothing has come of it. Perhaps the only things that remain are claims of clairvoyance and special knowledge, and of energy healing.
It puts me in mind of modern attempts to do levitation. This was filmed and put on YouTube. There would be monks sitting on a wooden platform, meditating but not moving a centimetre off the surface. I recall also some instances of someone practicing Transcendental Meditation swearing that they felt they had levitated, but being informed by onlookers that they hadn’t moved.
Stephen Batchelor may go a bit far when he says that he considers karma and rebirth to be features of Indian culture at that time, but he is not entirely wrong in indicating that those two parts of doctrine go against ehipassiko, which is an almost scientific view. In a way mankind is still freeing itself from superstition, and all the writings that are from those times contain elements of that thinking.
Learned behavior, basically anything that doesn't come from biology.
The line of what is due to environment and what is due to biology isn't clearly drawn. But to each there own isn't the way it works in science, there are definitive answers.
At any rate environment does matter, but there is a real danger of harm when we think we can change things about people that are fairly hardwired. Highly introverted people can learn social skills, but they will still be introverted. Highly agreeable people can learn to take a stand and speak up for themselves, but they will still naturally be agreeable. I think its better to understand the strengths of these sorts of traits and seek to draw them out rather than saying something like extroversion is better so we just need to change introverts and "bring them out of their shell". As an introvert myself I would say extroverts need to learn to appreciate the richness of their inner world.
My main point in saying something about this isn't that its all nature, its that there were a couple statements saying it was virtually all nurture, and I think the science says quite definitively that isn't the case.
It makes me wonder what the Middle way would be here. Whatever it may be I would imagine clinging to it is not the best idea. So besides any doctrine of self what is there?
Maybe the doctrine of not-self. Instead of trying to pin down what the self is, our time is better spent realizing what self is not. It certainly doesn't do much good to act as if we are not here and have no consequence.
Anything we can examine is not self but there is examining going on.
I think we probably have an infinite amount of selves affecting each other through conditionality.
We do seem to be here affecting each other and the 1st NT is that we all suffer so I feel that I am responsible for the actions of this aspect or avatar or whatever and cannot escape their consequences. But then neither can anyone else. If I cause harm, it isn't just me that is affected so I think we can find our morality and ethics in the parts of the teachings that we can examine for ourselves rather than any dogma surrounding rebirth.
I think allowing for the possibility of rebirth is important but I think forming and taking on a belief in something we cannot examine for ourselves goes against the grain.
I’d agree with that, @david. For some things it doesn’t matter so much what you believe, but when it’s as core as what happens to us personally after death, then it has a lot of consequence on how you live your life, and it’s a good idea to insist on personally verifiable proof before you take a belief on board.
There is an interesting discussion of this on the Rebirth Wikipedia page:
Being cheeky, I can't help but figure that if the conditions are right a compounded thing might re-manifest.
"Master, what happens to us when we die?"
"I don't know."
"But aren't you a master?"
"Not a dead one."
I came across this today in a Lion’s Roar article by TNH on the doors of liberation...
Of course he is right, there is no beginning and no end to our lives. We were present in another form before our birth and will be present in yet another form after our death.
Perhaps that is all that rebirth is...
https://www.lionsroar.com/the-doors-of-liberation-may-2014/
You can also argue that there is no person there in the first place.
The same point is made by Zen master Dogen.
There is strictly no rebirth or 'redeath'.
Only birth, birth, birth or death, death, death.
A visiting Zen student asked Ajahn Chah, "How old are you? Do you live here all year round?" "I live nowhere," he replied. "There is no place you can find me. I have no age. To have age, you must exist, and to think you exist is already a problem. Don't make problems; then the world has none either. Don't make a self. There's nothing more to say."
I always get a kick out of that one. That is what it is to stink of Zen.
I hope that didn't sound too rude, however, putting myself in place of the student I find the answer more rude than clever.
You can, but it’s a bit superficial don’t you think? It’s clear that at the very least conception is a moment of discontinuity, where at a certain point during growing up you gain an awareness of memory and a measure of self-awareness. This isn’t continuous during our lives, when we sleep it changes to be present at a very low level. I’d say there still was some awareness because loud noises will shock you awake, but of a different type. Perhaps that is an answer, that the quality of awareness changes at birth and at death.
I dreamt last night, but during my dreams I didn’t have access to my memories, or a sense of being who I usually was. I did things for very superficial reasons, I was trying to catch a ferry to go to an island. So there was a goal and a desire, but where these things came from was a mystery, I had perceptions but not many thoughts.
I'm under the impression that if one has some experiential understanding of the processing/workings of the aggregated self ( meditative for example) then one will have a better ( dare I say easily) time conceptualising ( on a relative level) rebirth taking place...
The dilemma so it would seem comes because of our clinging and grasping to the concept of a more permanently abiding self,( in all its self awareness glory) that for the most part we are conditioned to 'believe' in...( force of 'habit' so to speak...which I should add looks to be self generating go figure
)...
I guess the old somewhat paradoxical idea of letting go is a sticking point... ...Who or what is it that lets go, and what is being let go of ?
I think confusion arises when it comes to trying to understand rebirth purely on the intellectual level and disregarding the intuitive level... Clinging to concepts can and often does become a comfort blanket ...maybe its this comfort blanket that needs to be let go of...:)
Hmm When the intellect ventures into where it does not belong, it becomes lost in its own confusion
But don't throw the baby/intellect out with the bath water...It's like a spring board, it can helps one to get to the next level...
Mind Stream
Stream of Consciousness
Shakespeare was pointing to the same thing and you wouldn't call him superficial would you?
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56966/speech-all-the-worlds-a-stage
You can also think there is ultimately no good or evil person, only good and evil deeds. A suicide bomber does what he does because of past causes and conditions. Driven by ignorance unskillful actions result. To practice in this way is to eradicate the false belief that a self exists. Your real enemy is ignorance or avijja.
Nice. That's also a great answer for the thread on how not to hate Nazis or pedophiles. I had to take a pass on that thread for lack of decent wording but I'd have put it like that if the words came.
I also think this is true for the most part. Some people give me pause and make me wonder, but many of the most evil deeds were done by people thinking they were doing the right thing, with unskillful actions turning into unskillful habits that make it difficult for them to do skillful things. They have become conditioned to think and act in ways that cause harm, but were not born evil demons. They're still people who may have been and done differently things were different. Those "evil beings" we see aren't concrete realities, although their actions are very real and have real effects.
Forgive "them" for "they" know not what "they" are doing.
Which has its origins in the Bible and believe me, they knew exactly what they were doing.
What Jesus meant was "Hey Dad, don't lose your temper, they have no idea who dey be messin' wiv.."
God, who had a mind all of his own (have YOU ever tried telling an Omnipotent God, what to do? Doesn't work, right?) decided to demonstrate the extent of his wrath by reacting in a very earthquakitory way...
Which tells me that the Old Feller was probably a bit touched in the head, because it was he who decided his son should die, in the first place. D'uh...
For millennia, it was assumed that either his own kin (The Jews) were either entirely, or partly responsible for his crucifixion, but that fact has now been discredited, and actually denounced by the RC Church Holy Council.
The conclusion is, that the Romans are with almost a 100% certainty, entirely to blame.
Christ was not the only Jew to have been killed in this way. (Anyone who's ever watched 'Spartacus' will know that...) The romans crucified them in their thousands.
The reasons they did so was because of a Political threat to a key location of their Empire.
Religious cause per se, had nothing to do with it.
The Romans had an agenda.
And you ask any so-called evil wrong-doer what they're doing it for, they will respond with an agenda. One close to their heart, one they feel strongly about. Passionate. Personal.
An completely wrong, form others' perspectives.
But an agenda of Hate, is based on an inner fear.
The Romans were afraid of losing their hold on an Empire founded on Military Power.
Anyone who acts hatefully, is doing so because they're afraid of a perceived threat to their own 'Power'.
The following is from a Christian page giving an introductory course on Sinning:
The 7 Deadly sins:
Lust – to have an intense desire or need: This is a fear of not being wanted, being rejected, and a fear of loss of control.
Gluttony – excess in eating and drinking: standard fear of going hungry, not having enough..
Greed - excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness: Speaks for itself. We discuss this often, don't we? This silly 'attachment' business...
Laziness – disinclined to activity or exertion: not energetic or vigorous: I see this as a manifestation of Power. The power to be indolent and to permit others to do everything, around them. You can argue, cajole, encourage, plead, suggest, insist a person be less lazy, more proactive, more helpful, and all they will do is dig their heels in, because they can. (I know someone like this...)
Wrath – strong vengeful anger or indignation: Again, a no-brainer...
Envy – painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage: This spells that Fear out, in a very articulate way...
Pride - quality or state of being proud – inordinate self esteem: Ego, innit?
But then, I saw this, further down:
What are the seven detestable sins according to the Bible?
“There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him:
Haughty eyes,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked schemes,
Feet that are quick to rush into evil,
A false witness who pours out lies
And a man who stirs up dissension among brothers” (Proverbs 6:16-19).
These, if examined, are all founded on a particular fear. It's obviously a more complex matter to define the specific 'fear' of each category, but I'm sure you can all get there without help, because you're all probably familiar with an experience of a good number of them.
I know I am....
threes should be trees, probably.
I'd agree with @pegembara, all the pain of the world comes from belief in the Sakkaya-ditthi and the belief that it's thoguhts and feelings are the true "self". I was sitting the other night and had a minor insight into how happiness and pain are the same thing both are tainted by the three marks of existence. Peace is true happiness not joy or pleasure. As for rebirth I've decided to take the view that if it happens it's fine, if it doesn't that's fine as well.
It might be.... * sniffs *
I seldom make mistakes and even when I'm wrong, I'm right. :P
Are the Three Marks of Existence related to the Four Hossmen of the Apocalypse?
Tee Hee. Well insighted.
Do not trust what you think, feel or believe mightily? Also do not trust your mistrust?
Aye caramba, existence sure is to be ducked out of ... 🤣
In the words of the Buddha, “I won't be back! I iz all karma'd out!”
@lobster, it's left me feeling remarkably peaceful since so it's all good.
For me, going just by my bare rationality, this subject is either very important or of no real importance. If there really is such a thing as transmigration of the soul, then we had better figure out how to get out of it, as we never know what sorts of evils we may have to suffer in the future... (and the evils for an unprepared, unripe soul in this world are legion...). If there is no rebirth, then it is simply a waste of time to lose sleep over it. Maybe my comment is a bit obvious, or maybe not, but those are my 2 cents.
And even if reincarnation has no reality, it has a practical reality, which illusion is just as real as if it were... well, "really real." - so in my mind one would be obliged to lose sleep over it, if it had some "truth" to it....