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.
What Evidence Is Present To Prove Re-Birth Exists?
Fine. I can follow most of that. I'm not sure I would put it all in quite that way, but I see no disagreement between my post and yours. Did you mean to indicate that there is one? If so you may have been too polite. It's not a mistake I make often enough.
I was not in disagreement with you, in any big way, by any means. I just thought I would go a little bit further and share a few of my thoughts with you. That’s all. : ^ )
Why all this concern about if we are going to continue after death, if we haven’t FIRST figured out who, or what, we are? Wouldn’t this be similar to a drowning man worrying about what is for supper?
I don't know. For someone already setting out on the path this comparison with a drowning man, or the traditional one of the man shot by an arrow, would be appropriate. But I didn't think the questionner had reached this point. I have great sympathy with sceptics, and I don't think the 'wait and see' approach cuts much ice with them.
F: I didn't think the questioner had reached this point.
S9: It is always difficult to know where someone else is, on any one issue. It seems that so many of us use our words differently. Even psychologists, who are trained in this area, (of understanding other people) will often start out by say, “So what you are saying is blah/blah/blah, because they want to make sure what you are saying is what they are hearing.
Add to this the fact that people don’t grow in their understanding in a uniform way. In one area they might be quite advance, whereas in another area they might be held back, maybe for emotional reasons, or because of painful scaring from a previous life event, and they have armored up protectively causing obstructions to growth.
So it often ends up like a blind man shooting at ducks, when we try to help another, esp. on a forum with so little previous information about any one person.
Often I find myself throwing mud against a wall, hoping some of it will stick, and be helpful in some small way.
And:
I don’t feel that I am alone in this feeling.
There have been multiple times, when some of that mud thrown by others has helped me to clarify quite a little bit…besides its fun. : ^ )
F: I have great sympathy with skeptics, and I don't think the 'wait and see' approach cuts much ice with them.
S9: Skeptics don’t wait and see. True/true/true.
But they don’t do a lot of things. One of these things they don’t do is believe very much.
Doubt is an excellent tool. But over done, it could make you catatonic. ; ^ )
F: But I'm just shooting the breeze.
S9: Me too. : ^ )
Best to take things lightly, if you can, especially when important. Serious subjects filled with helium.
HE/He/He
I find this an interesting question. While I am convinced that logic confirms the Buddha's metaphysical position, proves that it is the correct one, including the teachings regarding the possibility for the cessation of suffering, the importance of compassion, the accessibility of Buddhahood and so forth, it tells me nothing about rebirth. This idea does not seem to be necessary according to logic. Perhaps this is exactly why we are having this discussion rather than just looking up the answer. But maybe it's just that I just haven't spotted how rebirth is entailed by Nagarjuna's philosophical exposition of the Buddha position.
So I would also like to ask the question that started this thread.
I can see that Nagarjuna's proof that all positive metaphysical positions are absurd implies that the universe is a unity, and that from this most of Buddhist doctrine can be reconstructed. The theory of emptiness, the unreality of mental and corporeal phenomena, the Four Noble Truths etc. etc. emerge naturally, But rebirth does not seem to emerge. The proof seems to leave the question of rebirth still undecidable. Or does it?
This would be a different way of asking the same question.
I think that seeing rebirth as though it has something to do with birth and death has you dancing off into the future, or falling back into the past.
This exercise in confusion takes you out of the ‘Immediate Moment,’ where all our attention should be focused, splitting your attention up in such a way, makes it impossible to rediscover personal excellence.
It takes all of our attention within the ‘Here’ and ‘Now,’ which is highly necessary in order to Wake Up from this dreaming mind.
Waking up is is not done in half measures.
What we are looking for is a dimension within our self that is, all too often, overlooked, and very often remains a mystery.
Unfortunately this scattered attention is the mother of our suffering.
In short, some accept it at face value and believe the Buddha taught it was fact and therefore hold the belief themselves and feel there is sufficient evidence for it being true; some accept that he taught it and are open to the possibility but haven't accepted it as fact; some people don't believe he taught it as fact and only taught it as a moral teaching to those who already held the belief; some believe he taught rebirth of the false "self" and that the realms of rebirth refer to psychological states, etc. etc.
What evidence is present to prove that rebirth exists?
If one disregards the Lama's who 'say so', and we only look at this life, we can intuit other lifetimes.
There is the life as a zygote, then an embryo and fetus and finally life as an infant. There is life as a toddler, young child, pre-teen and teenager. There is young adult life, middle age and old age. These are all like separate lifetimes within the continuum of this very life.
Bottom line. There is no actual proof. We have stories of people like the delogs who died and came back to life with their tales of visiting the realms in the bardo. (google Delog Dawa Drolma) We have individuals who claim to remember their past lives. That's it.
Finally, there is death. What gives peace while dying?
Can one hold two views at one time, that this life is empty of inherent existence, that there is no 'self' as we think of it, and yet there are these stories of rebirth? Why do these stories exist if not to benefit us?
We may consider that the topic of rebirth (and for example, teachings on the bardo and transference of consciousness at death aka phowa) is uniquely relevant to some schools and lineages of Buddhism and not others. In that way, we can keep an open mind as we discuss the topic.
That seems like a good answer. For myself I wasn't looking to be convinced, I already am. But I'm also interested in the logic of it all. It's a question sceptics ask often.
"If scientists can prove that rebirth does not exist, then we must give up believing it to be true. However, if scientists cannot prove it false, then because they follow logic and the scientific method, which is open to understanding new things, they must investigate whether it does exist. To prove that rebirth does not exist, they would have to find its nonexistence. Just saying, "Rebirth does not exist because I do not see it with my eyes" is not finding the nonexistence of rebirth. Many things exist that we cannot see with our eyes."
If the scientists cannot prove the nonexistence of rebirth, it then behooves them to investigate if rebirth does in fact exist. The scientific method is to postulate a theory based on certain data and then check if it can be validated. Therefore, we look at the data. For example, we notice that infants are not born like blank cassettes. They have certain habits and personality characteristics observable even when they are very young. Where do these come from?
It makes no sense to say that they come from just the previous continuities of the physical substances of the parents, from the sperm and egg. Not every sperm and egg that come together implant in the womb to grow into a fetus. What makes the difference between when they do become a baby and when they do not? What is actually causing the various habits and instincts in the child? We can say it is the DNA and the genes. This is the physical side. Nobody is denying that this is the physical aspect of how a baby comes into being. Nevertheless, what about the experiential side? How do we account for mind?" http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/introduction/basic_question_karma_rebirth.html
The trouble with this line of argument is that the 'natural' sciences are still arguing about whether minds exist, so it can never get off the ground.
And then, it would require a major advance for the natural sciences to even care about whether rebirth exists.
I think you're quite right though. It's astonishing that even today the natural sciences allow the claims of mysticism to go untested. Methinks it is a can of worms they'd rather not open.
If the scientists cannot prove the nonexistence of rebirth, it then behooves them to investigate if rebirth does in fact exist. The scientific method is to postulate a theory based on certain data and then check if it can be validated.
Hi Sky
I agree with you, science will never be able to disprove rebirth. In the same way as it will never be able to disprove the existence of God, gods, heaven, realms of woe...
In order to be impervious to the assault of science (Which isn't going to get any less, I guess) if someone believes in rebirth they can just say "its Mysterious". The same with god or the problem of sufferings connection to reality. It can all be mysterious and then it is unavailable to attack from science and critical reasoning.
Problems can arise when for some reason people are unwilling to say its mystical. They want to somehow scientifically justify it in this post-modern world, and as soon as they try to do that they are instantly up against legitimate and inevitably victorious counter argument. In the realm of science, science will will.
I have made this mistake to, but from the other side. By definition the mystical cannot operate in the science realm without collapse, and likewise pretty much the other way around too.
I don't even think the debate is even philosophically interesting any-more (Or maybe I'm just currently weary of the debate?), because of this inevitable futility.
Interetsingly the people I have had the most aversion full debates on rebirth with here have been those who in some sense try to do just that, "rationalise the irrational" and all that.
The reason to “stir things up” is to get people talking and searching for the various ways of looking at any particular thing. I know that I am hoping that some wisdom will immerge from such a process, a little like a team effort.
Hopefully it doesn't degenerate into "one-upmanship," because that would be a disservice to all present. : ^ (
But picking the details apart, until they scream, can sometimes reveal truth, although not necessarily the same exact detail will be just what everyone needed. Yet much like a banquet, you can take what you need or are hungry for, and you don't have to trash what is left, or not to your liking, because that might be just what someone else is looking for, or needing, in order to fuel their personal journey on this wonderful path called Buddhism.
: ^ )
If you mean re-birth after physical death, the answer is NO. All is impermenant yet we continue to cling to notions that somehow we are not.
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
While I am convinced that logic confirms the Buddha's metaphysical position.
I do not recall the Buddha teaching metaphysics. I recall he taught about psychological suffering and its cessation. He taught the one goal of the spiritual life is the unshakeable freedom of mind. (He did not teach freedom from mind).
I do not recall the Buddha teaching consciousness is reborn My reading is he taught beings are reborn according to their karma (actions).
His rebirth teaching seems like a moral teaching rather than a metaphysical teaching.
There is the life as a zygote, then an embryo and fetus and finally life as an infant. There is life as a toddler, young child, pre-teen and teenager. There is young adult life, middle age and old age. These are all like separate lifetimes within the continuum of this very life.
I learned when I was 8 years old this life comes from two cells, one from the mother (ovum) and one from the father (sperm).
These two cells create another life which carries the same two cells to create future lives.
Those who do not reproduce, create nothing.
If all human beings abstained from sexual activity, human life would cease immediately.
Why do these stories exist if not to benefit us?
These stories exist the benefit non-practitioners, ie, faith-followers or unenlightened beings; so they avoid self-harm and have some solace at death.
There is no use talking about emptiness if one's mind has not realised it.
You're right, I think. A combination of their works would be very, very edifying for anyone with an interest that extends beyond soteriology. For someone who is not quite sure that Buddhist doctrine is not nonsense, as it so often can appear to be, a (very general) grasp of Nagarjuna's philosophical exegesis of the Buddha's view may reassure them.
Metaphysics proceeds by abduction, iow by the elimination of false views to leave the true view. This is the method recommended by Sherlock Holmes. You eliminate all the supects who could not be guilty, and eventually there is only one left. Note that it is not a positive proof. It proves what is false, not what is true.
In his Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way Nagarjuna logically proves that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible, thus elimating them from the enquiry. This leaves only a neutral metaphysical position, which is the basis of the Middle Way view. He does not show that a neutral view is logically defensible but I believe I can do it. (Bradley gives a discursive version of N's proof in Appearance and Reality).
What this means is that in metaphysics the only position that cannot be refuted is the Buddha's, and this can be demonstrated. I don't know why more people don't know this.
The phrase 'neutral metaphysical position' is mine. Bradley calls it 'Absolute Idealism,' from Hegel's 'Absolute Idea.'
You have “Absolutely” given me some food for thought. : ^ )
Thank you for that.
Let me just ask you a question, if you will.
If Nagarjuna’s works prove that, even emptiness at some point is empty of emptiness, (in other words we can throw away the concept or mental object called empty, too), wouldn’t that also go on to prove that neutral doesn’t really stand clear of duality either, or from co-dependency, but is also dependent upon duality to make any sense at all, (as in neutral vs. not neutral). In other words neutrality, or the ‘Middle Way’ as it is so often understood is still a concept within the mind?
Do you feel that Ultimate Truth transcends the ever-changing mind?
Are you familiar with the Hindu practice of Neti/Neti, (not this/not that), an analytical practice which pretty much speaks to your idea of eliminating whatever you can, in order to see what remains standing?
Perhaps if we ARE going to save ourselves, (Salvation or Freedom, pick your favorite), we pretty much going to have to save ourselves from ourselves, and all that we are presently accepting (without personally examining it) to be the truth. In other words, right now, most of us are sleep walking through this life, and living most of it by rote.
Don’t you think that one reason people have trouble with the metaphysical is that, it incorporates the paradoxical, or what may seem impossible or even contradictory to the mind, and yet at the same time can actually be experiences directly?
You have “Absolutely” given me some food for thought. : ^ )
Thank you for that. Let me just ask you a question, if you will.
If Nagarjuna’s works prove that, even emptiness at some point is empty of emptiness, (in other words we can throw away the concept or mental object called empty, too), wouldn’t that also go on to prove that neutral doesn’t really stand clear of duality either, or from co-dependency, but is also dependent upon duality to make any sense at all, (as in neutral vs. not neutral). In other words neutrality, or the ‘Middle Way’ as it is so often understood is still a concept within the mind?
Good point. I can't speak from experience, but that's my conclusion.
Do you feel that Ultimate Truth transcends the ever-changing mind?
Yes.
Are you familiar with the Hindu practice of Neti/Neti, (not this/not that), an analytical practice which pretty much speaks to your idea of eliminating whatever you can, in order to see what remains standing?
Sounds like a related practice. Advaita Hinduism is a neutral metaphysical position, and Radhakrishnan's Philosophy of the Upanishads is the clearest exposition I've come across.
Don’t you think that one reason people have trouble with the metaphysical is that, it incorporates the paradoxical, or what may seem impossible or even contradictory to the mind, ...
Very definitely. But it's an appearance. I believe that there are no paradoxes in metaphysics, and would say that this is exactly what Nagarjuna proves. He makes his proof in the logic of Aristotle and if his view were paradoxical in that logic then his argument would fail. But this is a technical point. Metaphysical problems certainly look like dilemmas with paradoxical answers and this certainly causes trouble. There can be no doubt about that.
What this means is that in metaphysics the only position that cannot be refuted is the Buddha's, and this can be demonstrated. I don't know why more people don't know this.
In my opinion, its because a person has to be willing to accept the logical proof as demonstrative. This can be a challenge for someone with preconceptions, which is almost everyone. I accept that you feel the logic only allows for the Buddha's, but of that logic, which is true seeing and which is projection?
I have no answer for this, as I didn't read the works you cite... but offer the possible rationale as to why some minds reject what appears as obvious to you.
Yes, that's a reason why some people do not accept the proof. But it's not a reason why it's so little known.
I wasn't suggesting that the success of Nagarjuna's proof is obvious to me. It certainly isn't. But that it is a proof is obvious to anyone who checks it out.
The relevance here is that his logical proof covers many aspects of the doctrine, but not the doctrine of karma.
AM: I accept that you feel the logic only allows for the Buddha's, but of that logic, which is true seeing and which is projection?
S9: That is a very good question. Not only what is a projection, or even is everything that the mind tells us, (shows us?) a projection of some kind, which may include our own identity?
Or even:
Is our logic simply dream logic, telling us true, but still all things considered, telling us about a dream? If so, what is outside of this dream, if anything?
I guess that is why seeing Reality always comes back to trying to see what is going on, in or out, without preconception, or more directly.
Is intuition (insight) outside of the mind? I guess we will only know if we give it a chance to develop and bring us something to prove itself. Heaven knows what we have now doesn’t seem to satisfy us.
This cannot be done immediately, simply because we logically decide to do this. It seems to call for a slow process of disentanglement, which for most of us requires decades out of our lives.
Maybe is because where we stand, the very ground under of feet, will also require questioning when the time comes. For in order to remove one projection of the mind, we have to stand somewhere, and so “best scenario,” we continue to see more subtly given time.
We slowly “Wake Up,” and we come to see that every dream is wrapped in another dream until we just STOP (dreaming).
I wish that you would speak of some of the proofs that Nagarjuna made, more explicitly, and why you agree with them in some detail, rather than referring them in an off handed manner. This is because I feel that you are far more versed in this area than I am, or even most of us, and we could gain from your knowledge of this area.
If I have to go off and read a bunch of books before I can speak of these things with you, we may never get to it, or at least not for some time. : ^ (
I am not being lazy, honest, nor asking you to spoon-feed me. ; ^ )
I actually went off and Googled a bunch of the very interesting things that you have referred to. I’ve got my reading for quite some time cut out for me in that area. But it looks to be a major undertaking; not one I will refuse to approach, mind you, but certainly it will take some time.
Is our logic simply dream logic, telling us true, but still all things considered, telling us about a dream? If so, what is outside of this dream, if anything?
This is a great reasoning, and one I feel can't really be determined until we know we are beyond it. The answer to the question doesn't really matter, but knowing it exists is reason enough to consider things possible, plausible but not certain. For instance, saying "that is so" becomes less true than "that appears so"
Not that it is necessary to represent this always in communication, but as we observe phenomena, the purpose for continued acceptance of 'subjective certainty' becomes obvious.
Yes. Sorry about that. I always worry that I might be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. Also, I didn't want to hijack the thread.
Here is an essay that covers the issues in detail. http://philpapers.org/rec/JONFMT
Just click on the title when you get there. If you want to comment maybe it would be best to start a new thread. I wish it was better written but it does lay out the issues comprehensively.
Nagarjuna's proof works like Zeno's. Time and motion were Zeno's targets, and he reduces our everyday notion of these things to absurdity by showing that they give rise to contradictions. In this way he defends his master Parmenides' worldview, for which all change is illusory. Nagarjuna systematically does the same for all our everyday notions of phenomena on behalf of his master. He can be interpreted as showing that nothing really exists, or, equivalently, as showing that all positive metaphysical positions are logically absurd. Bradley does the same, and so also, less formally, do Kant and Hegel. I see his proof as the philosophical explanation for why the Buddha asks us to abandon all our views.
I know two good books on his proof. The Sun of Wisdom by Tsultrum Gymatso is simple and short and very approachable for a Buddhist. The other is The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Jay Garfield. This is dense and difficult, but Garfield usefully and authoritatively (and brilliantly) translates N's philosophy into something recognizeable to 'western' philosophers for what I believe is the first time.
I know you're not being lazy. I've been fortunate to have a few years of free time to read extensively. Few people do. Beware putting too much work into this, though, for the issues are not actually all that complicated when you get down to basics. This is what I try to show in the essay. If you get in too deep your practice will probably suffer like mine has.
One day I hope to persuade myself to chuck away all these damn books.
Nowadays it has become fashionable to dismiss this question as unimportant. But if we reflect on the extent to which our views influence our action we will see that it is quite essential to gain some understanding of the complete context in which our lives unfold.
.Buddhism and Hinduism compared
.Rebirth without a "Transmigrating soul"
.What continues from one life to another?
.Preservation of identity illustrated
.Conception
.Teaching of dependent arising with specific reference to Rebirth
.Craving the Seamstress
.What is it that causes rebirth in a particular form
.Is rebirth scientifically acceptable?
In line with the present-day stress on the need for religious teachings to be personally relevant and directly verifiable, in certain Dhamma circles the time-honored Buddhist doctrine of rebirth has come up for severe re-examination. Although only a few contemporary Buddhist thinkers still go so far as to suggest that this doctrine be scrapped as "unscientific," another opinion has been gaining ground to the effect that whether or not rebirth itself be a fact, the doctrine of rebirth has no essential bearings on the practice of Dhamma and thence no claim to an assured place in the Buddhist teachings. The Dhamma, it is said, is concerned solely with the here and now, with helping us to resolve our personal hangups through increased self-awareness and inner honesty. All the rest of Buddhism we can now let go as the religious trappings of an ancient culture utterly inappropriate for the Dhamma of our technological age.
If we suspend our own predilections for the moment and instead go directly to our sources, we come upon the indisputable fact that the Buddha himself taught rebirth and taught it as a basic tenet of his teaching. Viewed in their totality, the Buddha's discourses show us that far from being a mere concession to the outlook prevalent in his time or an Asiatic cultural contrivance, the doctrine of rebirth has tremendous implications for the entire course of Dhamma practice, affecting both the aim with which the practice is taken up and the motivation with which it is followed through to completion.
Comments
I was not in disagreement with you, in any big way, by any means. I just thought I would go a little bit further and share a few of my thoughts with you. That’s all. : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
May I quote you on that?
Sure,
and you can have the copyrights. ; ^ )
Smiling,
S9
But I'm just shooting the breeze.
F: I didn't think the questioner had reached this point.
S9: It is always difficult to know where someone else is, on any one issue. It seems that so many of us use our words differently. Even psychologists, who are trained in this area, (of understanding other people) will often start out by say, “So what you are saying is blah/blah/blah, because they want to make sure what you are saying is what they are hearing.
Add to this the fact that people don’t grow in their understanding in a uniform way. In one area they might be quite advance, whereas in another area they might be held back, maybe for emotional reasons, or because of painful scaring from a previous life event, and they have armored up protectively causing obstructions to growth.
So it often ends up like a blind man shooting at ducks, when we try to help another, esp. on a forum with so little previous information about any one person.
Often I find myself throwing mud against a wall, hoping some of it will stick, and be helpful in some small way.
And:
I don’t feel that I am alone in this feeling.
There have been multiple times, when some of that mud thrown by others has helped me to clarify quite a little bit…besides its fun. : ^ )
F: I have great sympathy with skeptics, and I don't think the 'wait and see' approach cuts much ice with them.
S9: Skeptics don’t wait and see. True/true/true.
But they don’t do a lot of things. One of these things they don’t do is believe very much.
Doubt is an excellent tool. But over done, it could make you catatonic. ; ^ )
F: But I'm just shooting the breeze.
S9: Me too. : ^ )
Best to take things lightly, if you can, especially when important. Serious subjects filled with helium.
HE/He/He
Warm Regards,
S9
I did't mean to muddy the issue. ; ^ )
Grins,
S9
I find this an interesting question. While I am convinced that logic confirms the Buddha's metaphysical position, proves that it is the correct one, including the teachings regarding the possibility for the cessation of suffering, the importance of compassion, the accessibility of Buddhahood and so forth, it tells me nothing about rebirth. This idea does not seem to be necessary according to logic. Perhaps this is exactly why we are having this discussion rather than just looking up the answer. But maybe it's just that I just haven't spotted how rebirth is entailed by Nagarjuna's philosophical exposition of the Buddha position.
So I would also like to ask the question that started this thread.
I can see that Nagarjuna's proof that all positive metaphysical positions are absurd implies that the universe is a unity, and that from this most of Buddhist doctrine can be reconstructed. The theory of emptiness, the unreality of mental and corporeal phenomena, the Four Noble Truths etc. etc. emerge naturally, But rebirth does not seem to emerge. The proof seems to leave the question of rebirth still undecidable. Or does it?
This would be a different way of asking the same question.
Whether it's muddier or not I'm not sure.
I think that seeing rebirth as though it has something to do with birth and death has you dancing off into the future, or falling back into the past.
This exercise in confusion takes you out of the ‘Immediate Moment,’ where all our attention should be focused, splitting your attention up in such a way, makes it impossible to rediscover personal excellence.
It takes all of our attention within the ‘Here’ and ‘Now,’ which is highly necessary in order to Wake Up from this dreaming mind.
Waking up is is not done in half measures.
What we are looking for is a dimension within our self that is, all too often, overlooked, and very often remains a mystery.
Unfortunately this scattered attention is the mother of our suffering.
Warm Regards,
S9
Yep, it's a real thicket of views.;)
P
If one disregards the Lama's who 'say so', and we only look at this life, we can intuit other lifetimes.
There is the life as a zygote, then an embryo and fetus and finally life as an infant. There is life as a toddler, young child, pre-teen and teenager. There is young adult life, middle age and old age. These are all like separate lifetimes within the continuum of this very life.
Bottom line. There is no actual proof. We have stories of people like the delogs who died and came back to life with their tales of visiting the realms in the bardo. (google Delog Dawa Drolma) We have individuals who claim to remember their past lives. That's it.
Finally, there is death. What gives peace while dying?
Can one hold two views at one time, that this life is empty of inherent existence, that there is no 'self' as we think of it, and yet there are these stories of rebirth? Why do these stories exist if not to benefit us?
We may consider that the topic of rebirth (and for example, teachings on the bardo and transference of consciousness at death aka phowa) is uniquely relevant to some schools and lineages of Buddhism and not others. In that way, we can keep an open mind as we discuss the topic.
"If scientists can prove that rebirth does not exist, then we must give up believing it to be true. However, if scientists cannot prove it false, then because they follow logic and the scientific method, which is open to understanding new things, they must investigate whether it does exist. To prove that rebirth does not exist, they would have to find its nonexistence. Just saying, "Rebirth does not exist because I do not see it with my eyes" is not finding the nonexistence of rebirth. Many things exist that we cannot see with our eyes."
If the scientists cannot prove the nonexistence of rebirth, it then behooves them to investigate if rebirth does in fact exist. The scientific method is to postulate a theory based on certain data and then check if it can be validated. Therefore, we look at the data. For example, we notice that infants are not born like blank cassettes. They have certain habits and personality characteristics observable even when they are very young. Where do these come from?
It makes no sense to say that they come from just the previous continuities of the physical substances of the parents, from the sperm and egg. Not every sperm and egg that come together implant in the womb to grow into a fetus. What makes the difference between when they do become a baby and when they do not? What is actually causing the various habits and instincts in the child? We can say it is the DNA and the genes. This is the physical side. Nobody is denying that this is the physical aspect of how a baby comes into being. Nevertheless, what about the experiential side? How do we account for mind?"
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/introduction/basic_question_karma_rebirth.html
And then, it would require a major advance for the natural sciences to even care about whether rebirth exists.
I think you're quite right though. It's astonishing that even today the natural sciences allow the claims of mysticism to go untested. Methinks it is a can of worms they'd rather not open.
Hi Sky
I agree with you, science will never be able to disprove rebirth. In the same way as it will never be able to disprove the existence of God, gods, heaven, realms of woe...
In order to be impervious to the assault of science (Which isn't going to get any less, I guess) if someone believes in rebirth they can just say "its Mysterious". The same with god or the problem of sufferings connection to reality. It can all be mysterious and then it is unavailable to attack from science and critical reasoning.
Problems can arise when for some reason people are unwilling to say its mystical. They want to somehow scientifically justify it in this post-modern world, and as soon as they try to do that they are instantly up against legitimate and inevitably victorious counter argument. In the realm of science, science will will.
I have made this mistake to, but from the other side. By definition the mystical cannot operate in the science realm without collapse, and likewise pretty much the other way around too.
I don't even think the debate is even philosophically interesting any-more (Or maybe I'm just currently weary of the debate?), because of this inevitable futility.
Interetsingly the people I have had the most aversion full debates on rebirth with here have been those who in some sense try to do just that, "rationalise the irrational" and all that.
Thats my thoughts:)
Mat
The reason to “stir things up” is to get people talking and searching for the various ways of looking at any particular thing. I know that I am hoping that some wisdom will immerge from such a process, a little like a team effort.
Hopefully it doesn't degenerate into "one-upmanship," because that would be a disservice to all present. : ^ (
But picking the details apart, until they scream, can sometimes reveal truth, although not necessarily the same exact detail will be just what everyone needed. Yet much like a banquet, you can take what you need or are hungry for, and you don't have to trash what is left, or not to your liking, because that might be just what someone else is looking for, or needing, in order to fuel their personal journey on this wonderful path called Buddhism.
: ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
I do not recall the Buddha teaching consciousness is reborn My reading is he taught beings are reborn according to their karma (actions).
His rebirth teaching seems like a moral teaching rather than a metaphysical teaching.
These two cells create another life which carries the same two cells to create future lives.
Those who do not reproduce, create nothing.
If all human beings abstained from sexual activity, human life would cease immediately.
These stories exist the benefit non-practitioners, ie, faith-followers or unenlightened beings; so they avoid self-harm and have some solace at death.
There is no use talking about emptiness if one's mind has not realised it.
Meditation is about the development of consciousness or awareness.
When consciousness comes into contact with mental defilement, it extinguishes it, it dissolves it.
Consciousness is like water and mental defilements are like fire.
Fire cannot carry water and water cannot carry fire.
Only matter can carry fire.
Have we ever seen a river or stream carry a flame from one place to another?
When teenagers are overcome with sexual lust (defilement) in puberty, this is due to physical and hormonal changes rather than mental changes.
Lust, whilst mental, has its source in physical things rather than conscious awareness, just as fire is sustained by matter rather than by water.
So that consciousness can carry mental defilements from life to life is simply impossible.
This our mind can confirm via meditation practise.
When our consciousness touches a mental defilement, that mental defilement dissolves or extinguishes.
:smilec:
F: Nagarjuna clarifies the metaphysical implications of his teachings.
S9: I find that interesting. Could you elucidate a bit of what these statements might be and how they show up in what the Buddha said?
I read somewhere that some people consider Nagarjuna the 2nd Buddha...a combination of their works might be VERY edifying.
Respectfully,
S9
Metaphysics proceeds by abduction, iow by the elimination of false views to leave the true view. This is the method recommended by Sherlock Holmes. You eliminate all the supects who could not be guilty, and eventually there is only one left. Note that it is not a positive proof. It proves what is false, not what is true.
In his Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way Nagarjuna logically proves that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible, thus elimating them from the enquiry. This leaves only a neutral metaphysical position, which is the basis of the Middle Way view. He does not show that a neutral view is logically defensible but I believe I can do it. (Bradley gives a discursive version of N's proof in Appearance and Reality).
What this means is that in metaphysics the only position that cannot be refuted is the Buddha's, and this can be demonstrated. I don't know why more people don't know this.
The phrase 'neutral metaphysical position' is mine. Bradley calls it 'Absolute Idealism,' from Hegel's 'Absolute Idea.'
You have “Absolutely” given me some food for thought. : ^ )
Thank you for that.
Let me just ask you a question, if you will.
If Nagarjuna’s works prove that, even emptiness at some point is empty of emptiness, (in other words we can throw away the concept or mental object called empty, too), wouldn’t that also go on to prove that neutral doesn’t really stand clear of duality either, or from co-dependency, but is also dependent upon duality to make any sense at all, (as in neutral vs. not neutral). In other words neutrality, or the ‘Middle Way’ as it is so often understood is still a concept within the mind?
Do you feel that Ultimate Truth transcends the ever-changing mind?
Are you familiar with the Hindu practice of Neti/Neti, (not this/not that), an analytical practice which pretty much speaks to your idea of eliminating whatever you can, in order to see what remains standing?
Perhaps if we ARE going to save ourselves, (Salvation or Freedom, pick your favorite), we pretty much going to have to save ourselves from ourselves, and all that we are presently accepting (without personally examining it) to be the truth. In other words, right now, most of us are sleep walking through this life, and living most of it by rote.
Don’t you think that one reason people have trouble with the metaphysical is that, it incorporates the paradoxical, or what may seem impossible or even contradictory to the mind, and yet at the same time can actually be experiences directly?
Respectfully,
S9
Yes.
Sounds like a related practice. Advaita Hinduism is a neutral metaphysical position, and Radhakrishnan's Philosophy of the Upanishads is the clearest exposition I've come across.
Very definitely. But it's an appearance. I believe that there are no paradoxes in metaphysics, and would say that this is exactly what Nagarjuna proves. He makes his proof in the logic of Aristotle and if his view were paradoxical in that logic then his argument would fail. But this is a technical point. Metaphysical problems certainly look like dilemmas with paradoxical answers and this certainly causes trouble. There can be no doubt about that.
In my opinion, its because a person has to be willing to accept the logical proof as demonstrative. This can be a challenge for someone with preconceptions, which is almost everyone. I accept that you feel the logic only allows for the Buddha's, but of that logic, which is true seeing and which is projection?
I have no answer for this, as I didn't read the works you cite... but offer the possible rationale as to why some minds reject what appears as obvious to you.
I wasn't suggesting that the success of Nagarjuna's proof is obvious to me. It certainly isn't. But that it is a proof is obvious to anyone who checks it out.
The relevance here is that his logical proof covers many aspects of the doctrine, but not the doctrine of karma.
AM: I accept that you feel the logic only allows for the Buddha's, but of that logic, which is true seeing and which is projection?
S9: That is a very good question. Not only what is a projection, or even is everything that the mind tells us, (shows us?) a projection of some kind, which may include our own identity?
Or even:
Is our logic simply dream logic, telling us true, but still all things considered, telling us about a dream? If so, what is outside of this dream, if anything?
I guess that is why seeing Reality always comes back to trying to see what is going on, in or out, without preconception, or more directly.
Is intuition (insight) outside of the mind? I guess we will only know if we give it a chance to develop and bring us something to prove itself. Heaven knows what we have now doesn’t seem to satisfy us.
This cannot be done immediately, simply because we logically decide to do this. It seems to call for a slow process of disentanglement, which for most of us requires decades out of our lives.
Maybe is because where we stand, the very ground under of feet, will also require questioning when the time comes. For in order to remove one projection of the mind, we have to stand somewhere, and so “best scenario,” we continue to see more subtly given time.
We slowly “Wake Up,” and we come to see that every dream is wrapped in another dream until we just STOP (dreaming).
Warm Regards,
S9
I wish that you would speak of some of the proofs that Nagarjuna made, more explicitly, and why you agree with them in some detail, rather than referring them in an off handed manner. This is because I feel that you are far more versed in this area than I am, or even most of us, and we could gain from your knowledge of this area.
If I have to go off and read a bunch of books before I can speak of these things with you, we may never get to it, or at least not for some time. : ^ (
I am not being lazy, honest, nor asking you to spoon-feed me. ; ^ )
I actually went off and Googled a bunch of the very interesting things that you have referred to. I’ve got my reading for quite some time cut out for me in that area. But it looks to be a major undertaking; not one I will refuse to approach, mind you, but certainly it will take some time.
Warm Regards,
S9
This is a great reasoning, and one I feel can't really be determined until we know we are beyond it. The answer to the question doesn't really matter, but knowing it exists is reason enough to consider things possible, plausible but not certain. For instance, saying "that is so" becomes less true than "that appears so"
Not that it is necessary to represent this always in communication, but as we observe phenomena, the purpose for continued acceptance of 'subjective certainty' becomes obvious.
With warmth,
Matt
Here is an essay that covers the issues in detail. http://philpapers.org/rec/JONFMT
Just click on the title when you get there. If you want to comment maybe it would be best to start a new thread. I wish it was better written but it does lay out the issues comprehensively.
Nagarjuna's proof works like Zeno's. Time and motion were Zeno's targets, and he reduces our everyday notion of these things to absurdity by showing that they give rise to contradictions. In this way he defends his master Parmenides' worldview, for which all change is illusory. Nagarjuna systematically does the same for all our everyday notions of phenomena on behalf of his master. He can be interpreted as showing that nothing really exists, or, equivalently, as showing that all positive metaphysical positions are logically absurd. Bradley does the same, and so also, less formally, do Kant and Hegel. I see his proof as the philosophical explanation for why the Buddha asks us to abandon all our views.
I know two good books on his proof. The Sun of Wisdom by Tsultrum Gymatso is simple and short and very approachable for a Buddhist. The other is The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Jay Garfield. This is dense and difficult, but Garfield usefully and authoritatively (and brilliantly) translates N's philosophy into something recognizeable to 'western' philosophers for what I believe is the first time.
I know you're not being lazy. I've been fortunate to have a few years of free time to read extensively. Few people do. Beware putting too much work into this, though, for the issues are not actually all that complicated when you get down to basics. This is what I try to show in the essay. If you get in too deep your practice will probably suffer like mine has.
One day I hope to persuade myself to chuck away all these damn books.
.Rebirth without a "Transmigrating soul"
.What continues from one life to another?
.Preservation of identity illustrated
.Conception
.Teaching of dependent arising with specific reference to Rebirth
.Craving the Seamstress
.What is it that causes rebirth in a particular form
.Is rebirth scientifically acceptable?