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.
Yawn. Why make it personal. I asked a question. Shrugs
It not personal, its evident.
You asked a series of questions to which people have attempted to answer.
Why is it that we cant seem to get a clear conceptual framework from you on what you really want?
It does seem that you want to hear responses that accord with your views, and thats fine, but you should at least give others the courtesy of responses that are fruitful.
My brother David and I were forced to train in Boxing by our father. We hated it at first, but once we learned the skills, we got high fighting. Still do sometimes.:o
You love to start a bar fight Mat..
I certainly like to discuss philosopshy. Its a passion for sure.
Fighting, I would much rather not:) I will respond to the woo and the woof woof though, especially when its barking in a thread I hoped would stear clear of opinion and sutta.
I agree! Cant I just be the five aggregates? I am cool with that. It makes sense to me and it fits with science and experience. There is nothing to be reborn, I am 100% happy with that.
My question was about the philosophy of those who do believe in rebirth.
Here is how I see rebirth-It is a work in progress and I am not claiming anything just learning.
The system we live in is quite complex to say the least and I agree that all we know of one thing from another thing is learned from our senses in relation to each other and from one another. If we percieve something, lets say I percieve you Mat, with that perception I make conclusions about how I relate to you, then I take a course of action based on those conclusions. This action takes life as an energy force. This energy force I speak of is an idea that spurs action. Let's say I decide to get my feelings hurt by something you say to me. I then take this hurt feeling, an idea, and decide to perpetuate it on to someone else. The idea, of being vengeful is then carried on by someone else, and the rebirth cycle continues on. That idea and the consequent action can then be rebirthed by me and by others.
How to make philosophy alive in heart and mind? Can any of us speak from the authority of experience?
Being a "zennie" at heart we are taught, and have it demontrated, that in the end we can only speak from experience. Even when we think we are expressing objective views, we are speaking from the experience of abiding (unconsciously) in views.
Everiything seems to collapse into sheer experiencing, sheer experiencing collapses into.....
Here is how I see rebirth-It is a work in progress and I am not claiming anything just learning.
The system we live in is quite complex to say the least and I agree that all we know of one thing from another thing is learned from our senses in relation to each other and from one another. If we percieve something, lets say I percieve you Mat, with that perception I make conclusions about how I relate to you, then I take a course of action based on those conclusions. This action takes life as an energy force. This energy force I speak of is an idea that spurs action. Let's say I decide to get my feelings hurt by something you say to me. I then take this hurt feeling, an idea, and decide to perpetuate it on to someone else. The idea, of being vengeful is then carried on by someone else, and the rebirth cycle continues on. That idea and the consequent action can then be rebirthed by me and by others.
Thanks for the explanation. You seek to be describing karma in action there, which i fully agree is real and crucial to dharma. I am not sure what you mean by "energy force" but asside from that, sure.
But, that doesn't explain anything about when I die. When these neurons loose energy and stimulus as my brain starves over seconds until they meet their own thermodynamic ending and thats it, I'm gone.
I am in my bed, just dead. What is reborn in your view above?
I am in my bed, just dead. What is reborn in your view above?
I think he means that "acting" is rebirth. If I act on a past impulse and that perpetuates another action another action another action...that is what he calls rebirth.
If you don't understand rebirth and cannot relate to it, why not just let it go and work with what you do understand?
I have been conditionally certain in the falsity of rebirth for a fair few years:) its very much let go, and that letting go is a cornerstone of my Dharma practice.
But this is a discussion forum for Buddhists and I like to discuss philosophy and rebirth and all kinds of things:)
Thanks for the explanation. You seek to be describing karma in action there, which i fully agree is real and crucial to dharma. I am not sure what you mean by "energy force" but asside from that, sure.
But, that doesn't explain anything about when I die. When these neurons loose energy and stimulus as my brain starves over seconds until they meet their own thermodynamic ending and thats it, I'm gone.
I am in my bed, just dead. What is reborn in your view above?
Thanks
mat
By energy force I mean a thought or idea in my mind and the consequent actions the idea spurs.
When we die some of our thoughts and ideas are reborn in other life forms, be it planets or people. How does it work? I do not know but I did hear a very interesting observation last night that corresponds to this idea regarding herrings.
Each herring has a specific call associated with their territory. No territory is the same and no call is the same. When a herring dies or leaves the territory and a new herring takes its place, the new bird has the same call associated with the respective territory. What is interesting is the call is not taught to the new herring, it is a natural unexplainable occurrence. The call is rebirthed (for lack of a better term) in other life forms.
By energy force I mean a thought or idea in my mind and the consequent actions the idea spurs.
When we die some of our thoughts and ideas are reborn in other life forms, be it planets or people.
I dont really think this is how it works. I feel that the actual idea of rebirth is a lot more subtle than this.
What you posted about herrings is really interesting though.
I have been conditionally certain in the falsity of rebirth for a fair few years:) its very much let go, and that letting go is a cornerstone of my Dharma practice.
But this is a discussion forum for Buddhists and I like to discuss philosophy and rebirth and all kinds of things:)
As do many other Buddhists, you know:)
OK. Your stance is that rebirth is a false teaching or one that cannot ultimately be proved.
I think rebirth is a wisdom topic and a topic of skillful means. Wisdom is beyond concepts, and skillful means are whatever is useful.
If it's useful to consider other lifetimes--either in the past or the imagined future then the teaching on rebirth are a skillful means.
If rebirth cannot be understood on the level of concepts because it has to be contemplated and meditated on then rebirth is a wisdom teaching. You don't argue wisdom, it just is.
No offense taken:)"what is here in the moment that will be reborn?"
All the aggregates are reborn through the process of becoming (bhavana). The article I quoted from Bhikkhu Bodhi actually laid out the process quite well. There need be no external, additional agency and that is precisely what made the Buddha's teachings on rebirth so revolutionary. You seem to be skipping ahead of the first question of whether or not you 'are' in the first place in your analysis. You may want to check out this article:
From the Buddhist point of view, we are always trying to find something that is inherently real, real by nature, in our environment and in our mind. One of the basic questions in Buddhism is what is the difference between the true nature of things and the way they appear to us?
The Buddha discovered that the genuine, true thing we keep looking for isn't there at all. The whole world only appears to be real, and what appears to be the most real is ourselves. This goes beyond the level of ego-we are talking about existence itself. We feel that we exist. We feel that our thoughts, our dreams and hopes, are real.
So if the Buddha tells us that's not so, do we decide non existence must be real? Some kind of voidness, the complete negation of everything-is that Buddhism? Well, Buddhism is more complicated than that: things don't exist, but they don't not exist either.
No one told us to see ourselves as solid entities.
We came up with that on our own.
The Buddha discovered the truth because he overcame his obscurations, his ignorance. It is basic ignorance that keeps us from seeing the existence/nonexistence of things. What if we were to sit down and try to find exactly where the "me" abides? Is it in the brain, is it in the heart? We would have a hard time pinning it down exactly. On one level, of course we are here. But on another level, are we as solid as we've always believed ourselves to be?
So "Who am I and what is my world?" might be the next question. Understanding this is a journey that takes a while. We need to try to understand existence before we can understand nonexistence. Things are not real the way we think they should be. Life will not turn out the way we think it should. We have built our house over an underground stream. Essentially, we have been operating with a misunderstanding about reality. And first we have to let that go.
I dont really think this is how it works. I feel that the actual idea of rebirth is a lot more subtle than this.
What you posted about herrings is really interesting though.
I thought so too,
I do agree that (*edit* the rebirth of the) energy force (as I defined it) is a very subtle thing, almost unnoticeble to the naked mind.
Could you elaborate a little on what you mean by subtlety? I am very much intrigued and have been trying to put these thoughts and images of rebirth that are in my mind into realization.
By energy force I mean a thought or idea in my mind and the consequent actions the idea spurs.
Ok, but those ideas are surely just the arrangements of their composites? There seems to be no enegery distinct from the aggregates? Or is the aggregate in some sense the the energy?
When we die some of our thoughts and ideas are reborn in other life forms, be it planets or people. How does it work?
A philosophically more important question is why do you believe that is the case? i am with you all the way until the moment of death, then you start saying this continuation somehow jumps to someplace? sometime else? Planets or people? Why do you think that?
Then maybe we can look to how it could work!
Each herring has a specific call associated with their territory. No territory is the same and no call is the same. When a herring dies or leaves the territory and a new herring takes its place, the new bird has the same call associated with the respective territory. What is interesting is the call is not taught to the new herring, it is a natural unexplainable occurrence.
A fishy analogy!:)
For example, we could say: "The call is a normalised model of the local environment. So the representaional grammar is genetic and then when active it represents the environs. So the location determines the call.
I am not saying thats true but the point is that wouldnt contradict any laws of nature. the theory could be tested for. etc etc etc.
But that is not the case with rebirth as you describe is it?
OK. Your stance is that rebirth is a false teaching or one that cannot ultimately be proved.
I think rebirth is a wisdom topic and a topic of skillful means. Wisdom is beyond concepts, and skillful means are whatever is useful.
If it's useful to consider other lifetimes--either in the past or the imagined future then the teaching on rebirth are a skillful means.
If rebirth cannot be understood on the level of concepts because it has to be contemplated and meditated on then rebirth is a wisdom teaching. You don't argue wisdom, it just is.
Actually no:) My belief is not that it cannot ultimately be proved but rather that The Buddha realised the whole notion of "more than this" and "the mystical" had to be esaped in order to be enlihtened.
So I think he said we need to escape THE IDEA of a cycle of rebirth not an actual cycle.
I appreciate this is a very unusual view in Buddhism!:)
I do agree that (*edit* the rebirth of the) energy force (as I defined it) is a very subtle thing, almost unnoticeble to the naked mind.
Could you elaborate a little on what you mean by subtlety? I am very much intrigued and have been trying to put these thoughts and images of rebirth that are in my mind into realization.
I'm going to use another fish analogy and its only an idea of course, not some kind of Shenpen Nangwa revealed truth by any means.
The idea of awareness as nature is interesting to me but by awareness I am not referring to ordinary perceptive awareness (see Rigpa).
Do fish realize that they live in water?
Similarly, do sentient beings recognize that they ARE the manifestation of a birthless, primordial, spontaneous, "awareness"?
To me "rebirth" is a provisional teaching. One that is applied to conventional or relative reality and the world of forms. There is no substance that transmigrates but the physical forms that embody life are based on skandas, karma, etc. and the potency of their nature is birthless, pervasive, and spontaneous.
Mat- Ok, but those ideas are surely just the arrangements of their composites?
I am not quite sure what you mean by this question, can you rephrase it please?
Mat - There seems to be no energy distinct from the aggregates? Or is the aggregate in some sense the energy?<O:p
There very much may be energy distinct of the aggregates but if there is energy distinct from the aggregates, how could we know of it? <O:p
Mat- A philosophically more important question is why do you believe that is the case? i am with you all the way until the moment of death, then you start saying this continuation somehow jumps to someplace? sometime else? Planets or people? Why do you think that?<O:p
I don’t think that the thought-energy of which I am referring to jumps from place to place but it naturally adheres to and affects other entities (I don’t like this word entity so I need to formulate a better one), according to the laws of thermo dynamics. I think that this energy affects and adheres to other entities, as I have experienced this indescribable thought-energy, that came from something or someone else (or at least so it seems), affect my thoughts and actions. Accordingly, this thought-energy has rebirthed in me, regardless of whether the initiator of the thought-energy is alive or dead as we see understand death. Furthermore, I feel death as an end-game is a superfluous idea. Life is energy and energy does not die it, it simply changes. <O:p
As for the bird (herring gull not fish), it very much be a responsive stimuli from the genetic code caused by the environment but how remarkable is that? Furthermore, regardless of the how’s and why’s, what is important to this argument is that the same thought-energy is rebirthed to other entities. The new bird protects the territory from other herrings and finds potential mates using the same call, the same thoughts, the same thought-energy is used. (I am not completely satisfied with this analogy.)
To me "rebirth" is a provisional teaching. One that is applied to conventional or relative reality and the world of forms. There is no substance that transmigrates but the physical forms that embody life are based on skandas, karma, etc. and the potency of their nature is birthless, pervasive, and spontaneous.
The new bird protects the territory from other herrings and finds potential mates using the same call, the same thoughts, the same thought-energy is used. (I am not completely satisfied with this analogy.)
That sounds like a huge stretch in logic to be honest (that they use the same call, therefore the thought-energy of the previous herring to have claimed that territory was reborn in a new herring).
That sounds like a huge stretch in logic to be honest (that they use the same call, therefore the thought-energy of the previous herring to have claimed that territory was reborn in a new herring).
I agree it is a stretch and that is why I don't really like this analogy and will probably abandon it. Is the thought-energy in the herring reborn? No, it is probably an intrinsicly potential thought-energy dormant in the other herring until it has inherited the old territory.
There very much may be energy distinct of the aggregates but if there is energy distinct from the aggregates, how could we know of it? <O:p
Yes, agree. There may be some distinct energy that is not identical with the mind and we may never know of it. What would be different about this from a, say, Christian soul?
I don’t think that the thought-energy of which I am referring to jumps from place to place but it naturally adheres to and affects other entities (I don’t like this word entity so I need to formulate a better one), according to the laws of thermo dynamics.
If you believe that thats kushti, nein problemo here. But do you acknowledge its mystical?
Yes, agree. There may be some distinct energy that is not identical with the mind and we may never know of it. What would be different about this from a, say, Christian soul?
If you believe that thats kushti, nein problemo here. But do you acknowledge its mystical?
mat
If there is this distinct energy from the mind, as we mention here, it would be similar to what the Christians call a soul. But as I think we are in agreement, we do not know if it exists or what its role and function is.
Is it mystical? I think the mystical aspect of this argument is becoming more seemingly apparant. As I said, I am working this out in my head and I am far from able to making any claims. However, I am becoming more aware of things that influence and affect us that I cannot yet describe. I am, however, skeptical that this unknown force(s) is a sentient being.
if there is doubt about a long-held notion like rebirth, you can look at it this way if you'd like! buddhism, though it can be dogmatic, is a religion or whatever you'd like to call it that somewhat inherently tries to avoid dogmatism. that is, a proper buddhist whether modern or ancient tries to remain open-minded, receptive and unbinding to views, and relies on their own experience, feeding on it wisely, at least, they are encouraged to. whereas religions like christianity, dogma is often more the rule than the exception, and christians do not usually emphasize an in-depth investigation of all experience. so a buddhist, coming from a large and ancient tradition of people who seek to understand experience, can have some faith in things outside their own direct experience, most specifically, other buddhists' experience. the notion of post-mortem rebirth has a long history in buddhism, even going back much before buddhism. true you could say that it is just a common and very popular delusion, but that would be to ignore the fact that there have been many very wise people who believed in it too. so i would say do not even believe in rebirth without questioning it, but keep in mind that certain ideas exist for a reason! either way, zazen is more important.
If there is this distinct energy from the mind, as we mention here, it would be similar to what the Christians call a soul. But as I think we are in agreement, we do not know if it exists or what its role and function is.
Sure, but as with the Christain soul the overwhealing evfeidence suggests we are biological not mystical:)
Is it mystical? I think the mystical aspect of this argument is becoming more seemingly apparent.
Sure, but as with the Christain soul the overwhealing evfeidence suggests we are biological not mystical:)
Mat this goes back to that discussion we had in that other thread, the opposing camps of materialistic reductionism, and Idealistic reductionism. I think what you refer to as "mysticism" is the Idealist camp. You oppose this Idealist reductionism with a straightforward materialist reductionism. Its an old debate that was superseded, as far as I can tell, by postmodernism, which revealed the the untenable position of both extremes. Ofcourse post modernism just replaced this with cultural reductionism which is no better, but it did explode these postions.
Mat this goes back to that discussion we had in that other thread, the opposing camps of materialistic reductionism, and Idealistic reductionism. I think what you refer to as "mysticism" is the Idealist camp. You oppose this Idealist reductionism with a straightforward materialist reductionism. Its an old debate that was superseded, as far as I can tell, by postmodernism, which revealed the the untenable position of both extremes. Ofcourse post modernism just replaced this with cultural reductionism which is no better, but it did explode these postions.
Hi Richard
This isn't quite the ye olde "ism" debate, its about the laws that govern this world rather than the makeup of this world.
For example, it doesn't matter if this "world" is physical, a simulation, a dream or whatver, all of these possibilities still are contained by the set of governing laws.
From the laws of physics, to biology and beyond, with Dharma, into morality and mentality. This set seems consistent, encompassing and pretty much complete.
So....
When I describe something as mystical I mean that it supposedly effects this world internally but is not contained by the set of laws.
The miracles of the bible, ghosts, NDE's and literal rebirth all belong outside of the set of laws.
That's the point.
Now...
If someone wants to believe in literal rebirth I have absolutely no issue with their belief. But If they then try to just fudge in the mystical to the universal as if it does connect and fit, when it demonstrably doesn't, then well... there is a discussion to be had!:)
Practice Fishipanna Mediation from a stream enter to full on scuba!:p
that is an efishent way to realize enlightenment. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa om
If someone wants to believe in literal rebirth I have absolutely no issue with their belief. But If they then try to just fudge in the mystical to the universal as if it does connect and fit, when it demonstrably doesn't, then well... there is a discussion to be had!:)
at this point do biologists, physicists and police officers know perfectly the laws of the universe, internal and external, or do they remain in the dark, just as past scientists and civil servants were oblivious to certain things we now take as obvious? hath science pervasively investigated the inner fabric of the mind as spiritual seekers have, wherein the process of rebirth is to be fully understood?
hath science pervasively investigated the inner fabric of the mind
Inner fabric? Do you mean the neurochemical processes that constitute brain activity. Do your own research on this, but I think yes, to an astounding degree that leaves the mysticial even more lacking in connections:)
as spiritual seekers have, wherein the process of rebirth is to be fully understood?
If they have, that's great. But its mystical:)
I personally think they havent, they just think they have, in the same was as NDE and past life experiencers think they have:)
ye Olde Rebirth debate wont go away in my head - or it seems many other Buddhist's.
CLINGING
One question I would be keen to hear answers from those who belive in litteral Rebirth is: What is it about me now that gets reborn?
CLINGING
For example, I am here writing this post 100% sure that I am my expeince and my expeince is me. That is all there is, in the five aggrigates or other classifications.
So what is it about me, or you, that is alive which passes on after death?
To use the candle-flame analogy, what is the flame in me, or you, now?
Not perfectly, but we know some of them and what we know forms a consistent set that has no nomological access to the mystical phenomenon.
hahahaha WE?? matt who is we? are you the head ambassador of science in buddhist lands? ha ha ha hahahaha, joking. though to be honest, i don't really know what you are saying.
Inner fabric? Do you mean the neurochemical processes that constitute brain activity. Do your own research on this, but I think yes, to an astounding degree that leaves the mysticial even more lacking in connections:)
no, i'm not talking about chemistry, i'm talking about the perceptual end of things and experience. when you meditate deeply and have familiarized yourself with the mind as it is, you come to know the "inner fabric", which transcends "neurochemical processes", which we have absolutely no access to in ordinary experience.
If they have, that's great. But its mystical:)
I personally think they havent, they just think they have, in the same was as NDE and past life experiencers think they have:)
hahahaha WE?? matt who is we? are you the head ambassador of science in buddhist lands? ha ha ha hahahaha, joking. though to be honest, i don't really know what you are saying.
We=us=the human system:)
I will try to explain better:)
Pick anything.. a thought, a dream, a star a mountain a man a fish or even a tadpole. Whatever you pick you will be able to connect it nomologically to other things.
By "nomologically" I mean in a way that is grounded in laws and principles.
And these connections are consistent. If we take them all there will be no contradictions amongst any of them. This is, in a sense, the body of rational human understanding, and it is all lawlike.
The mystical is not connected to this set of lawlike connections. Its not connected to rational human understanng.
Does that make sense now?:)
no, i'm not talking about chemistry, i'm talking about the perceptual end of things and experience. when you meditate deeply and have familiarized yourself with the mind as it is, you come to know the "inner fabric", which transcends "neurochemical processes", which we have absolutely no access to in ordinary experience.
That may be so, I am not saying it isnt. I am saying if it is so thenit is anomalous, it doesn't fit with the laws and theories that we find in the universe.
Though there is an interesting technical point here.
When you say "transcendental" you might mean in some sense escaping from, or mystically beyond the nomological or you may mean "emergent".
One is incompatible with science the other is utterly foundational to:)
I think emergence is the only majic:)
I think the Buddha thought this too... the middle path between the myctial and the pointless is the path that emmeges, arises, from the foundational dharmic truths of annica, anatam,an and dukka.
Pick anything.. a thought, a dream, a star a mountain a man a fish or even a tadpole. Whatever you pick you will be able to connect it nomologically to other things.
By "nomologically" I mean in a way that is grounded in laws and principles.
And these connections are consistent. If we take them all there will be no contradictions amongst any of them. This is, in a sense, the body of rational human understanding, and it is all lawlike.
The mystical is not connected to this set of lawlike connections. Its not connected to rational human understanng.
Does that make sense now?:)
yes, thank you, but perhaps as i said before we are still very far off from completely comprehending the system in which these connections are made? reality is more mysterious than we think.
That may be so, I am not saying it isnt. I am saying if it is so thenit is anomalous, it doesn't fit with the laws and theories that we find in the universe.
Though there is an interesting technical point here.
When you say "transcendental" you might mean in some sense escaping from, or mystically beyond the nomological or you may mean "emergent".
One is incompatible with science the other is utterly foundational to:)
I think emergence is the only majic:)
I think the Buddha thought this too... the middle path between the myctial and the pointless is the path that emmeges, arises, from the foundational dharmic truths of annica, anatam,an and dukka.
Mat
i'm no scholar but didn't the buddha teach rebirth along with everything else he taught?
[A.III.33] And the action (kamma) that is done out of greed........ this action ripens wherever one is reborn; and wherever this action ripens, there one experiences the fruits of this action, be it in this life, or the next life, or in some future life.
no, i'm not talking about chemistry, i'm talking about the perceptual end of things and experience. when you meditate deeply and have familiarized yourself with the mind as it is, you come to know the "inner fabric", which transcends "neurochemical processes", which we have absolutely no access to in ordinary experience.
And you know this through your own meditative experience? How precisely does meditation lead to such a revelation? Please elaborate on your insight.
yes, thank you, but perhaps as i said before we are still very far off from completely comprehending the system in which these connections are made?
It isnt complete but its self supporting. That's the point.
reality is more mysterious than we think.
Espeiclaly when you try to squeeze in the mysterial;)
i'm no scholar but didn't the buddha teach rebirth along with everything else he taught?
We don't know what he taught, we just have the echos of his teachings as a guide.
I don't believe he taught rebirth, I believe he taught the opposite but that over the centuries various influences have distorted the view diametrically.
These influences include:
Transmission errors - Don't forget the Suttas have a pretty similar lineage to the greek myths.
Translation errors - We simply have no way of knowing what any meanings could have been with certainty.
Cultural augmentations - see how all religions adopt the norms of the cultures they are embedded in.
Political machinations - The Great later On Con is a demonstrable tool of politics using religion to dominate.
Its happened with ALL other religions (Apart from maybe Scientology) so why not Buddhism?
its about the laws that govern this world rather than the makeup of this world.
Mat
There is actually no such thing as a governing law. Such a force is no less metaphysical/mystical than God,and has its root in theological assumptions. "Law" is a discriptive of a normative.
There is actually no such thing as a governing law. Such a force is no less metaphysical/mystical than God,and has its root in theological assumptions. "Law" is a discriptive of a normative.
Richard, why would you say that?
You want science and life in with the bogus as well, I guess?
Of course there are goventning laws, if you wnat to quibble over their metaphysical status, that's another debate much hackneyed in the Philosophy of Science. That isn't this debate, however.
Let's take an example as:
Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object. (From Wiki)
Now this is true of all cases in this universe. It would have been true if Archimedes had ever discovered it and it will be true for the countless alien Archimedies that are probably discovering it as we speak.
If you dont agree with that then stop reading now!:) And we should stop talking about this. But if you do....
This law, universal generalisation, phsycial principles or whatever you wish to call it links in with other laws and principles that i am sure a physicist could explain better than me, but lets say the Newton's Third law of Thermodynamics.
If one of those laws was different so would the other be.
Moreover, these laws laws connect, logically, with all the laws until we have this interrelated body that we can call Science.
Sure, its not perfect and there are gaps and approximations but it is a self supporting whole that has allowed us to make computers, fly to the room and do all we do, and be what we are.
This is a no brianer:)
Rebirth and ghosts and all that other stuff doesn't fit with this big ball of consistent principles/laws. That doesn't mean they are false, it means they are nonscientific/mystical.
Mystical principles don't connect with other laws, not even, it seems, other mystical principles. Sure people have tried from wayback up to all the new quantum attempts but thats all just guesswork not science.
There is no scientific way to deal with the msytcial. If you can digg that with your zen pure experience thats great, I actually think you are lucky, I cant however:)
This has been my problem with Rebirthy Buddhism for near a decade: We have this body of laws and we can see, without question (show me wrong on this by all means), that the laws of Dharma are completely connected with tehse other laws. It is so wonderful.
Dharma. Science are one.
And then we have this retarded (In the literal not pejorative sense) notion of Rebirth that I believe the Buddha saw was distracting, wasteful wrong view.
It doesn't fit with dharma and science. I believe it is simply pre bronze age asian mumbo and the revolutionary Buddha saw it for what it was:)
Rebirth - a poor 'Western" label ascribed to an intuitively experienced phenomena, the seemingly arising, enduring and passing away of being, which is itself a label ascribed to a functional phenomena - in no way real in the absolute.
I like to imagine being as a label ascribed to a coherent force field and sentient being as a label ascribed to a coherent force field with the functional characteristic of sentience. So, what is it that carries on after the dissolution of this being? How about the energetic potential that's released into space (hasn't this got something to do with the conservation of energy - physics), which may cohere into another something we call a being.
This process may be influenced by another functional phenomena we call 'morphogenic resonance'
'Morphic resonance
Essential to Sheldrake's model is the hypothesis of morphic resonance.[17] This is a feedback mechanism between the field and the corresponding forms of morphic units. The greater the degree of similarity, the greater the resonance, leading to habituation or persistence of particular forms. So, the existence of a morphic field makes the existence of a new similar form easier.
Sheldrake proposes that the process of morphic resonance leads to stable morphic fields, which are significantly easier to tune into. He suggests that this is the means by which simpler organic forms synergetically self-organize into more complex ones, and that this model allows a different explanation for the process of evolution itself, as an addition to the Darwin's evolutionary processes of selection and variation.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Morphic_resonance
Hey, nice delusional blah blah blah about illusion, anyway. Keep it up! Stuck on stupid can be entertaining!
Rebirth - a poor 'Western" label ascribed to an intuitively experienced phenomena, the seemingly arising, enduring and passing away of being, which is itself a label ascribed to a functional phenomena - in no way real in the absolute.[/bob]
Bob, that's just avoiding the issue. Wrap it up anyway you want, Do you believe you exist, in any sense other than memories and ashes, after your death?
I am as certain as I can be I will not. How about you?
So, what is it that carries on after the dissolution of this being? How about the energetic potential that's released into space (hasn't this got something to do with the conservation of energy - physics), which may cohere into another something we call a being.
If you belive that thats fine. But don't think just by using the terms "energy" and "being" it makes it scientifically or philosophically sound.
Why wont you just acknowledge you have no way to rationalise it but nonetheless you believe it? If your going to be mystcial why not just acknowledge that?
This process may be influenced by another functional phenomena we call 'morphogenic resonance'
I have met Rupert a number of times, heard him speak and had one three or four hour one to one chat with him about MR. He is great guy and thinker for sure. But there isnt much evidence or supporting theory for MR and, moreover, I dont really see what it has to do with Dharma and rebirth.
Hey, nice delusional blah blah blah about illusion, anyway. Keep it up! Stuck on stupid can be entertaining!
Hey, If you imagine being threatened you own that, it's in your head. I didn't write Mat on that statement. As a matter of fact, I was referring to the whole process of blah blah blah philosophical speculation and arguing about a relative point of view that has no genuine practical application to training. Sad!
What I've actually been imagining regard this thread and your behavior is how much more fruitful it would be if you put all the energy you've been investing in this speculative stuff into KNOWING the Four Foundations of Mindfulness.
The image I get when I reflect on this behavior is of a dog gnawing on a bone. It appears you're really stuck on and truly emotionally invested in this delusional stuff.
Hey, If you imagine being threatened you own that, it's in your head. I didn't write Mat on that statement. As a matter of fact, I was referring to the whole process of blah blah blah philosophical speculation and arguing about a relative point of view that has no genuine practical application to training. Sad!
What I've actually been imagining regard this thread and your behavior is how much more fruitful it would be if you put all the energy you've been investing in this speculative stuff into KNOWING the Four Foundations of Mindfulness.
The image I get when I reflect on this behavior is of a dog gnawing on a bone. It appears you're really stuck on and truly emotionally invested in this delusional stuff.
Hey, LET IT GO!!
Bob, you yourself admitted how you get on here, in a post you wrote this very day!:)
I aint here to find enlightenment,its an internet chat forum. I am here to talk about Dharma and Philosophy. If that doesn't interest you just don't join in:)
The statement that "law" is a descriptive of a normative is now accepted (grudgingly) by even the most die-hard newtonian types, precisely because they are phobic of metaphysics. This does not mean that one places The dance traditions of Garden Gnomes in the same category as Fluid dynamics. You stressed that this is not about "Ye Olde" "isms" but that is exactly, clearly, without any ambiguity, what you are expressing (muddled as it is). The joke is that the old time arguments between materialsts and Idealists, were both rooted in the fiction of a transcendent law. Lets be clear here Mat the Law you are describing is inherently transcendent. To deny this is just to fall into nonsense.
Its beginning to look like debating you is pointless, not because you are too philosophical , but because of a systemic categorical confusion in you position. It's like nailing jello to the wall.
Does this mean I accept Ufos, the cosmic origins of the plains of Nazca, and my nieghbours assertion that there is a family of mauve crocodiles living under his porch? no. Does it mean I accept rebirth because it is written, no. Does it mean that, given my consistent first hand experience, the cycle of rebirth may continue beyond the event horizon of death? Quite possibly. Am I an eternalist ? No. Am I a Nihilist ? No.
Philisophical debates are great fun. Lets have one some time.
Comments
You asked a series of questions to which people have attempted to answer.
Why is it that we cant seem to get a clear conceptual framework from you on what you really want?
It does seem that you want to hear responses that accord with your views, and thats fine, but you should at least give others the courtesy of responses that are fruitful.
I certainly like to discuss philosopshy. Its a passion for sure.
Fighting, I would much rather not:) I will respond to the woo and the woof woof though, especially when its barking in a thread I hoped would stear clear of opinion and sutta.
mat
Here is how I see rebirth-It is a work in progress and I am not claiming anything just learning.
The system we live in is quite complex to say the least and I agree that all we know of one thing from another thing is learned from our senses in relation to each other and from one another. If we percieve something, lets say I percieve you Mat, with that perception I make conclusions about how I relate to you, then I take a course of action based on those conclusions. This action takes life as an energy force. This energy force I speak of is an idea that spurs action. Let's say I decide to get my feelings hurt by something you say to me. I then take this hurt feeling, an idea, and decide to perpetuate it on to someone else. The idea, of being vengeful is then carried on by someone else, and the rebirth cycle continues on. That idea and the consequent action can then be rebirthed by me and by others.
This is probably the area where theory and practice connect.
Being a "zennie" at heart we are taught, and have it demontrated, that in the end we can only speak from experience. Even when we think we are expressing objective views, we are speaking from the experience of abiding (unconsciously) in views.
Everiything seems to collapse into sheer experiencing, sheer experiencing collapses into.....
Then we really fly on the path!
Rebirth as a topic is useful if it moves the mind and heart.
Thanks for the explanation. You seek to be describing karma in action there, which i fully agree is real and crucial to dharma. I am not sure what you mean by "energy force" but asside from that, sure.
But, that doesn't explain anything about when I die. When these neurons loose energy and stimulus as my brain starves over seconds until they meet their own thermodynamic ending and thats it, I'm gone.
I am in my bed, just dead. What is reborn in your view above?
Thanks
mat
The topic of rebirth is not for everyone. It took me many years before I felt a softening in my mind and heart to the topic.
I think he means that "acting" is rebirth. If I act on a past impulse and that perpetuates another action another action another action...that is what he calls rebirth.
I have been conditionally certain in the falsity of rebirth for a fair few years:) its very much let go, and that letting go is a cornerstone of my Dharma practice.
But this is a discussion forum for Buddhists and I like to discuss philosophy and rebirth and all kinds of things:)
As do many other Buddhists, you know:)
By energy force I mean a thought or idea in my mind and the consequent actions the idea spurs.
When we die some of our thoughts and ideas are reborn in other life forms, be it planets or people. How does it work? I do not know but I did hear a very interesting observation last night that corresponds to this idea regarding herrings.
Each herring has a specific call associated with their territory. No territory is the same and no call is the same. When a herring dies or leaves the territory and a new herring takes its place, the new bird has the same call associated with the respective territory. What is interesting is the call is not taught to the new herring, it is a natural unexplainable occurrence. The call is rebirthed (for lack of a better term) in other life forms.
I dont really think this is how it works. I feel that the actual idea of rebirth is a lot more subtle than this.
What you posted about herrings is really interesting though.
I think rebirth is a wisdom topic and a topic of skillful means. Wisdom is beyond concepts, and skillful means are whatever is useful.
If it's useful to consider other lifetimes--either in the past or the imagined future then the teaching on rebirth are a skillful means.
If rebirth cannot be understood on the level of concepts because it has to be contemplated and meditated on then rebirth is a wisdom teaching. You don't argue wisdom, it just is.
All the aggregates are reborn through the process of becoming (bhavana). The article I quoted from Bhikkhu Bodhi actually laid out the process quite well. There need be no external, additional agency and that is precisely what made the Buddha's teachings on rebirth so revolutionary. You seem to be skipping ahead of the first question of whether or not you 'are' in the first place in your analysis. You may want to check out this article:
http://shambhala-europe.org/index.php?id=1425
I thought so too,
I do agree that (*edit* the rebirth of the) energy force (as I defined it) is a very subtle thing, almost unnoticeble to the naked mind.
Could you elaborate a little on what you mean by subtlety? I am very much intrigued and have been trying to put these thoughts and images of rebirth that are in my mind into realization.
Ok, but those ideas are surely just the arrangements of their composites? There seems to be no enegery distinct from the aggregates? Or is the aggregate in some sense the the energy?
A philosophically more important question is why do you believe that is the case? i am with you all the way until the moment of death, then you start saying this continuation somehow jumps to someplace? sometime else? Planets or people? Why do you think that?
Then maybe we can look to how it could work!
A fishy analogy!:)
For example, we could say: "The call is a normalised model of the local environment. So the representaional grammar is genetic and then when active it represents the environs. So the location determines the call.
I am not saying thats true but the point is that wouldnt contradict any laws of nature. the theory could be tested for. etc etc etc.
But that is not the case with rebirth as you describe is it?
Interesting!:)
Mat
Actually no:) My belief is not that it cannot ultimately be proved but rather that The Buddha realised the whole notion of "more than this" and "the mystical" had to be esaped in order to be enlihtened.
So I think he said we need to escape THE IDEA of a cycle of rebirth not an actual cycle.
I appreciate this is a very unusual view in Buddhism!:)
Mat
I'm going to use another fish analogy and its only an idea of course, not some kind of Shenpen Nangwa revealed truth by any means.
The idea of awareness as nature is interesting to me but by awareness I am not referring to ordinary perceptive awareness (see Rigpa).
Do fish realize that they live in water?
Similarly, do sentient beings recognize that they ARE the manifestation of a birthless, primordial, spontaneous, "awareness"?
To me "rebirth" is a provisional teaching. One that is applied to conventional or relative reality and the world of forms. There is no substance that transmigrates but the physical forms that embody life are based on skandas, karma, etc. and the potency of their nature is birthless, pervasive, and spontaneous.
The aware ones do;)
Practice Fishipanna Mediation from a stream enter to full on scuba!:p
I am not quite sure what you mean by this question, can you rephrase it please?
Mat - There seems to be no energy distinct from the aggregates? Or is the aggregate in some sense the energy?<O:p
There very much may be energy distinct of the aggregates but if there is energy distinct from the aggregates, how could we know of it? <O:p
Mat- A philosophically more important question is why do you believe that is the case? i am with you all the way until the moment of death, then you start saying this continuation somehow jumps to someplace? sometime else? Planets or people? Why do you think that?<O:p
I don’t think that the thought-energy of which I am referring to jumps from place to place but it naturally adheres to and affects other entities (I don’t like this word entity so I need to formulate a better one), according to the laws of thermo dynamics. I think that this energy affects and adheres to other entities, as I have experienced this indescribable thought-energy, that came from something or someone else (or at least so it seems), affect my thoughts and actions. Accordingly, this thought-energy has rebirthed in me, regardless of whether the initiator of the thought-energy is alive or dead as we see understand death. Furthermore, I feel death as an end-game is a superfluous idea. Life is energy and energy does not die it, it simply changes. <O:p
As for the bird (herring gull not fish), it very much be a responsive stimuli from the genetic code caused by the environment but how remarkable is that? Furthermore, regardless of the how’s and why’s, what is important to this argument is that the same thought-energy is rebirthed to other entities. The new bird protects the territory from other herrings and finds potential mates using the same call, the same thoughts, the same thought-energy is used. (I am not completely satisfied with this analogy.)
I think we are on the same page here.
That sounds like a huge stretch in logic to be honest (that they use the same call, therefore the thought-energy of the previous herring to have claimed that territory was reborn in a new herring).
I agree it is a stretch and that is why I don't really like this analogy and will probably abandon it. Is the thought-energy in the herring reborn? No, it is probably an intrinsicly potential thought-energy dormant in the other herring until it has inherited the old territory.
Yes, agree. There may be some distinct energy that is not identical with the mind and we may never know of it. What would be different about this from a, say, Christian soul?
If you believe that thats kushti, nein problemo here. But do you acknowledge its mystical?
mat
If there is this distinct energy from the mind, as we mention here, it would be similar to what the Christians call a soul. But as I think we are in agreement, we do not know if it exists or what its role and function is.
Is it mystical? I think the mystical aspect of this argument is becoming more seemingly apparant. As I said, I am working this out in my head and I am far from able to making any claims. However, I am becoming more aware of things that influence and affect us that I cannot yet describe. I am, however, skeptical that this unknown force(s) is a sentient being.
Sure, but as with the Christain soul the overwhealing evfeidence suggests we are biological not mystical:)
I think so:)
Hi Richard
This isn't quite the ye olde "ism" debate, its about the laws that govern this world rather than the makeup of this world.
For example, it doesn't matter if this "world" is physical, a simulation, a dream or whatver, all of these possibilities still are contained by the set of governing laws.
From the laws of physics, to biology and beyond, with Dharma, into morality and mentality. This set seems consistent, encompassing and pretty much complete.
So....
When I describe something as mystical I mean that it supposedly effects this world internally but is not contained by the set of laws.
The miracles of the bible, ghosts, NDE's and literal rebirth all belong outside of the set of laws.
That's the point.
Now...
If someone wants to believe in literal rebirth I have absolutely no issue with their belief. But If they then try to just fudge in the mystical to the universal as if it does connect and fit, when it demonstrably doesn't, then well... there is a discussion to be had!:)
Do you see what I am saying?
Well wishes
Mat
Not perfectly, but we know some of them and what we know forms a consistent set that has no nomological access to the mystical phenomenon.
Inner fabric? Do you mean the neurochemical processes that constitute brain activity. Do your own research on this, but I think yes, to an astounding degree that leaves the mysticial even more lacking in connections:)
If they have, that's great. But its mystical:)
I personally think they havent, they just think they have, in the same was as NDE and past life experiencers think they have:)
The mind is awesome!
Mat
CLINGING
CLINGING
CLINGING
Can you explain that?
We=us=the human system:)
I will try to explain better:)
Pick anything.. a thought, a dream, a star a mountain a man a fish or even a tadpole. Whatever you pick you will be able to connect it nomologically to other things.
By "nomologically" I mean in a way that is grounded in laws and principles.
And these connections are consistent. If we take them all there will be no contradictions amongst any of them. This is, in a sense, the body of rational human understanding, and it is all lawlike.
The mystical is not connected to this set of lawlike connections. Its not connected to rational human understanng.
Does that make sense now?:)
That may be so, I am not saying it isnt. I am saying if it is so thenit is anomalous, it doesn't fit with the laws and theories that we find in the universe.
Though there is an interesting technical point here.
When you say "transcendental" you might mean in some sense escaping from, or mystically beyond the nomological or you may mean "emergent".
One is incompatible with science the other is utterly foundational to:)
I think emergence is the only majic:)
I think the Buddha thought this too... the middle path between the myctial and the pointless is the path that emmeges, arises, from the foundational dharmic truths of annica, anatam,an and dukka.
Mat
Mat,
Does it matter if rebirth is literal, metaphorical or both if you do not cling to a self?
If as you truly belief this is the only life you have you would not be asking these questions and spin endlessly.
[A.III.33] And the action (kamma) that is done out of greed........ this action ripens wherever one is reborn; and wherever this action ripens, there one experiences the fruits of this action, be it in this life, or the next life, or in some future life.
(Anguttara-Nikaya)
And you know this through your own meditative experience? How precisely does meditation lead to such a revelation? Please elaborate on your insight.
It isnt complete but its self supporting. That's the point.
Espeiclaly when you try to squeeze in the mysterial;)
We don't know what he taught, we just have the echos of his teachings as a guide.
I don't believe he taught rebirth, I believe he taught the opposite but that over the centuries various influences have distorted the view diametrically.
These influences include:
Its happened with ALL other religions (Apart from maybe Scientology) so why not Buddhism?
Mat
There is actually no such thing as a governing law. Such a force is no less metaphysical/mystical than God,and has its root in theological assumptions. "Law" is a discriptive of a normative.
Richard, why would you say that?
You want science and life in with the bogus as well, I guess?
Of course there are goventning laws, if you wnat to quibble over their metaphysical status, that's another debate much hackneyed in the Philosophy of Science. That isn't this debate, however.
Let's take an example as:
Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object. (From Wiki)
Now this is true of all cases in this universe. It would have been true if Archimedes had ever discovered it and it will be true for the countless alien Archimedies that are probably discovering it as we speak.
If you dont agree with that then stop reading now!:) And we should stop talking about this. But if you do....
This law, universal generalisation, phsycial principles or whatever you wish to call it links in with other laws and principles that i am sure a physicist could explain better than me, but lets say the Newton's Third law of Thermodynamics.
If one of those laws was different so would the other be.
Moreover, these laws laws connect, logically, with all the laws until we have this interrelated body that we can call Science.
Sure, its not perfect and there are gaps and approximations but it is a self supporting whole that has allowed us to make computers, fly to the room and do all we do, and be what we are.
This is a no brianer:)
Rebirth and ghosts and all that other stuff doesn't fit with this big ball of consistent principles/laws. That doesn't mean they are false, it means they are nonscientific/mystical.
Mystical principles don't connect with other laws, not even, it seems, other mystical principles. Sure people have tried from wayback up to all the new quantum attempts but thats all just guesswork not science.
There is no scientific way to deal with the msytcial. If you can digg that with your zen pure experience thats great, I actually think you are lucky, I cant however:)
This has been my problem with Rebirthy Buddhism for near a decade: We have this body of laws and we can see, without question (show me wrong on this by all means), that the laws of Dharma are completely connected with tehse other laws. It is so wonderful.
Dharma. Science are one.
And then we have this retarded (In the literal not pejorative sense) notion of Rebirth that I believe the Buddha saw was distracting, wasteful wrong view.
It doesn't fit with dharma and science. I believe it is simply pre bronze age asian mumbo and the revolutionary Buddha saw it for what it was:)
Mat
I like to imagine being as a label ascribed to a coherent force field and sentient being as a label ascribed to a coherent force field with the functional characteristic of sentience. So, what is it that carries on after the dissolution of this being? How about the energetic potential that's released into space (hasn't this got something to do with the conservation of energy - physics), which may cohere into another something we call a being.
This process may be influenced by another functional phenomena we call 'morphogenic resonance'
'Morphic resonance
Essential to Sheldrake's model is the hypothesis of morphic resonance.[17] This is a feedback mechanism between the field and the corresponding forms of morphic units. The greater the degree of similarity, the greater the resonance, leading to habituation or persistence of particular forms. So, the existence of a morphic field makes the existence of a new similar form easier.
Sheldrake proposes that the process of morphic resonance leads to stable morphic fields, which are significantly easier to tune into. He suggests that this is the means by which simpler organic forms synergetically self-organize into more complex ones, and that this model allows a different explanation for the process of evolution itself, as an addition to the Darwin's evolutionary processes of selection and variation.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Morphic_resonance
Hey, nice delusional blah blah blah about illusion, anyway. Keep it up! Stuck on stupid can be entertaining!
What I've actually been imagining regard this thread and your behavior is how much more fruitful it would be if you put all the energy you've been investing in this speculative stuff into KNOWING the Four Foundations of Mindfulness.
The image I get when I reflect on this behavior is of a dog gnawing on a bone. It appears you're really stuck on and truly emotionally invested in this delusional stuff.
Hey, LET IT GO!!
Bob, you yourself admitted how you get on here, in a post you wrote this very day!:)
I aint here to find enlightenment,its an internet chat forum. I am here to talk about Dharma and Philosophy. If that doesn't interest you just don't join in:)
Be disinterested not destructive:)
mat
Its beginning to look like debating you is pointless, not because you are too philosophical , but because of a systemic categorical confusion in you position. It's like nailing jello to the wall.
Does this mean I accept Ufos, the cosmic origins of the plains of Nazca, and my nieghbours assertion that there is a family of mauve crocodiles living under his porch? no. Does it mean I accept rebirth because it is written, no. Does it mean that, given my consistent first hand experience, the cycle of rebirth may continue beyond the event horizon of death? Quite possibly. Am I an eternalist ? No. Am I a Nihilist ? No.
Philisophical debates are great fun. Lets have one some time.