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.
To be honest sky, the Monk was stumped. I asked him "ahibdharma?" he thought and said yes but well, by then I was sure there was some discontinuity between dharma and rebirth:)
mat
Hmm. It makes me wonder if the monk was qualified to answer the question or if there was a translation issue going on.
Some teachers can take that question and the answer will affect the quality of your awareness. In which case, this would not only be words, but a symbolic answer and possibly a mind to mind transmission. Sometimes, that's what it takes for subtle answers.
Hmm. It makes me wonder if the monk was qualified to answer the question or if there was a translation issue going on.
Some teachers can take that question and have the answer affect the quality of your awareness. In which case, this would not only be words, but a symbolic answer and possibly a mind to mind transmission.
As a man who had dedicated his life to Dharma I hope he was!:)
But that's just nostalgia to me, the point is now, four or so years later, I still cant see how rebirth belongs in Dharma:)
Just a monk might not know. You might have to search to find someone who does know the answer. I think Nameless River had a good answer to your question which you have not addressed yet, scroll up.
S9: Certainly as a species we share ideas, even over long periods of time. But this is not quite the same as it traveling beyond the grave, is it?
QW: That would be quite a leap and one I was not claiming. My main focus on that post was to clarify that thoughts very much can be more impactful on the entire world including the planet (industrialism and global warming) then you had given them credit. As for thoughts transcending the grave, Mat and I had this conversation earlier on this thread and we both concluded that if they do transcend the grave it is a mystical unexplaineable (to us at least) occurence. I think they might from my own experiences but I am still not sure how or even why I believe this right now.
S9: That is very poetic. But sharing an idea, isn’t quite the same as rebirth of a idea. Rebirth might call for a death, don’t you think it?
Thanks, as a writer I like to here that. You make a very valid and excellent point. According to this above stated logic, for a thought to be rebirthed it has to first end with the original thinker and then the same thought spontaneously be reborn in another thinker. James Joyce, the writer, thought that thoughts were passed on from one being to another. He would do meditative writing allowing his hand to write whatever his brain would come up with and in these experiments wrote stuff that he later found in other previous writers that he had never read. I have a hypothesis that our genetic code carries with it certain combination of thoughts and given the appropriate environment the exact same thoughts will occur in one human as another, like the herrin example I mentioned before.
As for my two cents on Mat's rhetoric, it is rather simple, he doubts everything unless it is proven to be logical by his standards.
Mat, what I don't get is why you are interested in talking on rebirth so much as you are convinced on your position. I understand intellectual curiosity, but you claim to be resolved on this topic. This resolution in your thoughts regarding this topic is juxtaposed with intellectual curiousty which makes you seem either illogical or inhuman. Accordingly, either you have an ulterior motive (like trying to convince us ignorant rebirthers of our follied beliefs) or you doubt your position somewhat.
As for my two cents on Mat's rhetoric, it is rather simple, he doubts everything unless it is proven to be logical by his standards.
They are not my standards:) They are the same standards most "logical" people use.
They certainly don't "trump" the mystical. they are simply incompatible with it.
Mat, what I don't get is why you are interested in talking on rebirth so much as you are convinced on your position. Accordingly, either you have an ulterior motive (like trying to convince us ignorant rebirthers of our follied beliefs) or you doubt your position somewhat.
I don't doubt my position this any more than I doubt gravity or my love for my parents:)
An altyeriour motive... well for sure I have been soul searching lots on this point, especially since this forum. Why am I here spending this time, getting all attached and involved in it? Am I some ego maniac with a messiah complex that hasn't realised that yet? I don't think so.
I guess I am pretty zealous about doubting. I think the Buddha was. The idea that his last words were "Doubt everything be your own light" is something I hold deeply inside me. it just seems the right way to approach any body of supposed truth, be it dharma, media, the news, science.....
I have doubted Dharma as much as I can, and I cannot doubt it any more... it so certain to me and I would hope to all of you too. Rebirth, in this fact alone, is radically different to Dharma to me.
They are not my standards:) They are the same standards most "logical" people use.
They certainly don't "trump" the mystical. they are simply incompatible with it.
I don't doubt my position this any more than I doubt gravity or my love for my parents:)
An altyeriour motive... well for sure I have been soul searching lots on this point, especially since this forum. Why am I here spending this time, getting all attached and involved in it? Am I some ego maniac with a messiah complex that hasn't realised that yet? I don't think so.
I guess I am pretty zealous about doubting. I think the Buddha was. The idea that his last words were "Doubt everything be your own light" is something I hold deeply inside me. it just seems the right way to approach any body of supposed truth, be it dharma, media, the news, science.....
I have doubted Dharma as much as I can, and I cannot doubt it any more... it so certain to me and I would hope to all of you too. Rebirth, in this fact alone, is radically different to Dharma to me.
mat
By your standards, I wasn't inferring anything other than the standrads you personally hold.
I don't think you doubt your position but it was one of two options I could see for your interest in this topic. I normally don't care why someone is interested in a topic but since you have brought it up so much on this forum I invested interest in your interests (I'm interested in stuff like that).
What you just said makes you seem very human and if you comunicate like that always, I think you will avoid all these distractions caused by language.
What exactly is my confusion. In simple terms? In one line?
Based on your posts in this thread, you persist in trying to introduce a self into Buddhism. To add to the confusion, there are a few Buddhists who believe in Self, and some who use the word to mean something non-persistent. And to add further to the confusion, you seem to have a lot of trouble explaining yourself. So I'm not really sure that you're trying to introduce a self into Buddhism, because I can't get coherent ideas from your posts. That could be my fault. I'm not trying to accuse you, I'm just pointing out that I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate.
At any rate, confusion over the idea of self is my working hypothosis right now.
I completely disagree, especially on the point about his arguments being academic. I have never seen academic arguments that were so poorly constructed or belligerent.
I see no belligerence in Matt's posts. Undiplomatic word choice, sure. That happens a lot in debates where one or both sides are looking for a convenient, easily remembered label for a phenomenon. Personally, I'm not offended by the terms "mystical" or "rebirther".
I feel the same frustration everyone else feels in communicating with Matt. But I don't attribute it to a character failing on his part.
I see no belligerence in Matt's posts. Undiplomatic word choice, sure. That happens a lot in debates where one or both sides are looking for a convenient, easily remembered label for a phenomenon. Personally, I'm not offended by the terms "mystical" or "rebirther".
I feel the same frustration everyone else feels in communicating with Matt. But I don't attribute it to a character failing on his part.
We must have different interpretations of what is and is not belligerent.
The problem isnt the terms themselves, its how they are used.
And you know this through your own meditative experience? How precisely does meditation lead to such a revelation? Please elaborate on your insight.
don't take this the wrong way ma'am but i don't know if your mind is imbalanced from hormones and the side effects of pregnancy, but you often come off as a very grumpy person in your posts. to be honest i don't really care whether rebirth is true or not because it has absolutely nothing to do with actually being a buddhist more than the majority of the time it is discussed. i was only briefly stepping into this thread which i can see has denigrated into a circus by now. and mat i don't mean to offend you either but all these threads and arguments you are making are often little more than intellectual masturbation. i would say there is much zazen to be done on all sides!
To be honest sky, the Monk was stumped. I asked him "ahibdharma?" he thought and said yes but well, by then I was sure there was some discontinuity between dharma and rebirth:)
Liberal Arts Major: "Professor, can you explain how quantum mechanics is interpreted to derive the theory of multiple universes?"
Professor thinks about the fact that the LAM has no training in math beyond high school algebra, no training in philosophy, and no training in physics.
Professor: "Higher physics."
LAM: thinks--"Hmmm, sounds like the professor is stumped!"
I wasn't talking about rebirth. I could add a bunch of hahahas to my post or you can choose to read it as a simple question and not be offended by it. :P
Liberal Arts Major: "Professor, can you explain how quantum mechanics is interpreted to derive the theory of multiple universes?"
Professor thinks about the fact that the LAM has no training in math beyond high school algebra, no training in philosophy, and no training in physics.
Professor: "Higher physics."
LAM: thinks--"Hmmm, sounds like the professor is stumped!"
I wish there was a "like" function on here like there is on facebook.
Liberal Arts Major: "Professor, can you explain how quantum mechanics is interpreted to derive the theory of multiple universes?"
Professor thinks about the fact that the LAM has no training in math beyond high school algebra, no training in philosophy, and no training in physics.
Professor: "Higher physics."
LAM: thinks--"Hmmm, sounds like the professor is stumped!"
Really? Your scenerio uses assumptions just like you are making assumptions on Mat's expertise and training.
Really? Your scenerio uses assumptions just like you are making assumptions on Mat's expertise and training.
I dont think Ren is making assumptions, I think Mat's been pretty clear about his lack of interaction with Buddhist teachers and his general disregard for scripture and Buddhist academia.
Rens scenario is pretty spot on if you ask me.
Really? Your scenerio uses assumptions just like you are making assumptions on Mat's expertise and training.
Not at all. I'm pointing out that no answer is not an answer. There can be other reasons why someone wouldn't answer a question other than inability to answer it.
Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't realized it would be interpreted that way. Clumsy on my part.
I agree with you on his disregard for scripture and Buddhist academia. I thought he claims to have spent much time 8 years speaking studying the Dharma with several advanced practitioners. I don't know though.
Ren,
the assumption I noticed is that the professor thought the LAM had no advanced mathematical training when in fact he only knew the LAM was a LAM.
Anyways, I really like what both of you say most of the time and have learned much from you.
Sky: The short answer as to 'why are these poisons etc reborn' is karma is that they are reborn because they haven't been purified.
S9: I will grant you that if we have formed strong habits that cause us suffering, they will revisit us again and again until we are able to over come them, seen through them, or build positive habits to take their place.
But anything that is truly pleasurable will also come back to visit us in the form of either desire, craving, or even addiction, as well.
I do not feel that either strongly pleasurable or grievous habits can of necessity continue beyond the grave, however, or indeed need to.
Sky: If you examine in meditation what arises in the mind from moment to moment and consider rebirth as a continuum of moment-to-moment experience then my answer may make a kind of intuitive sense.
S9: Rebirth from moment-to-moment does not prove more of the same after death.
Intuition is a knowledge that comes to us, from out of who knows where. It is something that cannot always be explained by what came before it. It is a bit like what we call insights, gift like. Have you actually had an insights into reincarnation, or are you merely basing what you think on how things happen before during this life, life being the operative word?
Obviously by extrapolating, we are merely speculating., as we might that we are going to live tomorrow like we did on so many previous days. When in fact we may be hit by a bus, and be thrown into kingdom come. : ^ (
I just happened to hear Ajahn Brahms recorded talk on Buddhist meditation where he describes the jhanic bliss of nimitas where there is only consciousness but all the other senses to the world are shut down.
He also mentioned some meditators able to remember their earliest memories in the womb and as babies and even before. He stated that in deep states the mind has the power to answer some of the mysteries like rebirth and kamma. One has to get into deep states to realize this. Then all doubts about kamma in the sense of carrying life after life are resolved.
"The memories are clear as if one remembers what one did this morning and there is no doubt."
He was directly asked if he remembered his own past lives his answer was a monk can only speak about it to another monk. The questioner would have to ask another monk about AB experience.
So it seems to get to the "truth" of the matter one needs deep tranquillity meditation which is not really Buddha's speciality of insight into impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not self. Rebirth was part of Hindu culture and this belief is not world transcending.
The the gorilla in this room, er thread. seems to be this .....
There is nothing inherently bad about mysticism. It isn't inherently wrong for someone to be mystical. Why would someone make finding mysticism and purging it his mission ? The discredited Truth claim of Scientism shares a certain trait with other Absolutist Truth claims, and that is a compulsion within those attached to it, to purge the world of it's polar opposite Un-truth. When someone's whole posting history has one theme, and one theme only ....purging the untruth of mysticism, and proclaiming the truth of scientific materialism, at heart there has to be a fear of not being grounded and real, which is appropriate because one cannot be. The real impetus however comes from the un-acknowledged mysticism/metaphysics (two wings of one bird) buried within his own postion, Scientism. It is a case of protesting too much. If you did not have these metaphysical assumptions hidden in your own postion, you are not be preoccupied with purging then.
The the gorilla in this room, er thread. seems to be this .....
There is nothing inherently bad about mysticism.
I agree!
This debate hasn't been about "Is mystical bad?" but rather "Is rebirth mystical?"
I think the answer is cleanly and demonstrably "Yes, Rebirth is mystical."
Why would someone make finding mysticism and purging it his mission ?
That's another debate with many arguments. As said, I am faily convinced that the Buddha had that mission, but I respect the fact that many of you here are convinced he did not.
These are all just our opinions.
The real impetus however comes from the un-acknowledged mysticism/metaphysics (two wings of one bird)
Richard, I have been criticisied for being a philosophical dunce in my chats with you not by you!). But you are simply wrong on your definition of metaphsyics there.
Metaphsycis is about as far as you can get from the msyctal:) Have a read of thise entry.
In the sixties the meaning got distorted by the longhairs to mean all dream-catcher kinds of new age stuff, maaan:)
When i use it I use it in its technical original and philosophical sense. We may avoid more arguments if you can be clear on this distinction.
Liberal Arts Major: "Professor, can you explain how quantum mechanics is interpreted to derive the theory of multiple universes?"
Professor thinks about the fact that the LAM has no training in math beyond high school algebra, no training in philosophy, and no training in physics.
Professor: "Higher physics."
LAM: thinks--"Hmmm, sounds like the professor is stumped!"
Hi Ren
I had to think lots about that one and think its a false analogy.
I see Dharma as the wonderful complete set of truths that permeates our world from the most simple systems all the way to our complex moral and mental lives.
From any point in it you can get to any other. Just look at the Noble Truths and all they contain. The way you can "zoom" into them and see Dependent oringaintion and from that zoom into the Niddanyas. Or zoom into to the eightfold path and see how that perfectly places the experincer in the world.
Or we can zoom out from the noble truth of suffering and see how it is absolutely grounded at every level in imperminance and emptiness and interconnectivity. Moreover, we have the causal "oil" that makes it all flow and this flow can be followed from a simple system up to complex karmic networks we can never understand only experience.
This is how I see the Dharmic world, as a complete and encompassing system.
Rebirth doesn't belong in my view of this world. I have tried to make to make it fit, but it just doenst, to me.
So going back to your analogy, itsn more like:
Me, Physics Student: I understand how newtons laws of motion work and connect and connect with other laws but I do not understand why you belive the billiard balls can suddenly turn into levitating cantalopes.
Physics Professor: Higher Physics
Me: Nice Melons!
Mat. Re: Metaphysics. Thankyou for that link. I suggest you read it.
You will find this in the first paragraph.....The“science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change."
Once again Mat.... in a nutshell.... Metaphysics is what Mystics use to explain there Mystical experiences. It also refers to the theistic assumptions at the core the Scientism, such as transcendent, immutable, Laws of Nature and so forth.
R: Why would someone make finding mysticism and purging it his mission?
S9: Why would someone like bowling?
It could be because bowling is their idea of fun.
Or:
Maybe doubting is a way to investigate, from another angle, and like you they want to share their findings with others; another fun thing to do.
Although calling it “a mission” might be an exaggeration on your part. : ^ )
R: The discredited Truth claim of Scientism shares a certain trait with other Absolutist Truth claims.
S9: Lets face it, everyone thinks they are right, and we often hold strong opinions on these same ideas.
An “Absolutist” is always the “Other guy.” We on the other hand are open to the facts, and just won’t change, yet. ; ^ )
R: …and that is a compulsion within those attached to it, to purge the world of it's polar opposite Un-truth. When someone's whole posting history has one theme, and one theme only ....purging the untruth of mysticism, and proclaiming the truth of scientific materialism, at heart there has to be a fear of not being grounded and real, which is appropriate because one cannot be.
S9: Ah yes, Absolutely…the human condition. : ^ (
But to be fair…maybe not. ; ^ )
R: It is a case of protesting too much.
S9: All illusion/suffering is a protest against what IS, at least as we see it at this time. Our protestation is a real impetus to move beyond or deeper than our present state. Not to many of us are beyond this need to feel we are improving.
R: If you did not have these metaphysical assumptions hidden in your own position, you are not being preoccupied with purging then.
S9: Or would be ‘Realized’ like we are…Hmmm.
Perhaps we should do better to ask ourselves…”What am I holding on to?”
R: Metaphysics is what Mystics use to explain their Mystical experiences.
S9: The problem being that Ultimate Experience doesn’t lend itself to words or explanations, and so Zen says, “Don’t look at my finger (explanations/words). Look where I am pointing.
Sky: The short answer as to 'why are these poisons etc reborn' is karma is that they are reborn because they haven't been purified.
S9: I will grant you that if we have formed strong habits that cause us suffering, they will revisit us again and again until we are able to over come them, seen through them, or build positive habits to take their place.
But anything that is truly pleasurable will also come back to visit us in the form of either desire, craving, or even addiction, as well.
I do not feel that either strongly pleasurable or grievous habits can of necessity continue beyond the grave, however, or indeed need to.
Sky: If you examine in meditation what arises in the mind from moment to moment and consider rebirth as a continuum of moment-to-moment experience then my answer may make a kind of intuitive sense.
S9: Rebirth from moment-to-moment does not prove more of the same after death.
Intuition is a knowledge that comes to us, from out of who knows where. It is something that cannot always be explained by what came before it. It is a bit like what we call insights, gift like. Have you actually had an insights into reincarnation, or are you merely basing what you think on how things happen before during this life, life being the operative word?
Obviously by extrapolating, we are merely speculating., as we might that we are going to live tomorrow like we did on so many previous days. When in fact we may be hit by a bus, and be thrown into kingdom come. : ^ (
Just my 2 cents,
And worth every penny. ; ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
I keep feeling like you're asking me what my Buddhist qualifications are? What do you consider real insights into reincarnation?
Where is kingdom come?
Do you feel there is anything beyond this life. Is your position when you die you die?
R: …and that is a compulsion within those attached to it, to purge the world of it's polar opposite Un-truth. When someone's whole posting history has one theme, and one theme only ....purging the untruth of mysticism, and proclaiming the truth of scientific materialism, at heart there has to be a fear of not being grounded and real, which is appropriate because one cannot be.
S9: Ah yes, Absolutely…the human condition. : ^ (
But to be fair…maybe not. ; ^ )S9
maybe not the human condition, but definitely the condition of being deeply view attached, which we all know so well.
S9: All illusion/suffering is a protest against what IS, at least as we see it at this time. Our protestation is a real impetus to move beyond or deeper than our present state. Not to many of us are beyond this need to feel we are improving. S9
yes, but there is also simple projection, like the thief who sees thieves everywhere.S9[/quote]
R: If you did not have these metaphysical assumptions hidden in your own position, you are not being preoccupied with purging then.
S9: Or would be ‘Realized’ like we are…Hmmm.S9
you are quite right. But this in not just a case of finding a speck in someones eye. There is being trapped in our conceptual constructs, but there is also realizing not being trapped in our conceptual construct, at least some of time. Thats why we practice. S9[/quote]
R: Metaphysics is what Mystics use to explain their Mystical experiences.
S9: The problem being that Ultimate Experience doesn’t lend itself to words or explanations, and so Zen says, “Don’t look at my finger (explanations/words). Look where I am pointing.
Hi sky dancer. I'm not sure how to read your post. Are you commenting on the statement about Zen and metaphysics? Metaphysics assumes the existence of an unchanging essence, law, structure, or force,. In Zen when a teacher speaks of "true mind " or "buddha nature" she is just using skillful means. Any notion of ultimate unchanging reality is just that, a notion. This is why there is emphasis on practice. It is easy to slip into acknowledging that, while thinking "but I know there really is, Ive experienced it"... not realizing that this notion is cut from the same cloth as the prior assumptions.
"Whatever appears can be experienced as an aid and the path to
awakening. Grant your blessings that mind training may be
complete. With the direct understanding that what is ultimate
has no origin cessation or duration. It is emptiness. Yet what
arises appears from dependence or coincidence like an enchantment.
May I come to see everything and work naturally for the wellfare
of limitless beings as long as samsara lasts."
This is the end of a prayer or blessing. I think that it is
relevant to your topic in that what is ultimate neither has
origin cessation or duration. The self in buddhism is not
believed to be conditional. So either the self is unconditional
in which case it is empty. Or else you could say that there is
no permanent separate self within a conditional framework.
So you asked a wrong question. Because there is no self in the
first place as you had meant that also implies that with regards
to reincarnation that your question about 'what self reappears'
simply does not apply.
What does appear and arise comes from dependence or coincidence
like an enchantment.
This still leaves me with some questions but clearly it is not
a SELF which is reincarnated. I hope that you can see that point
clearly at least. The question remains as to what IS (or isn't )
reincarnated.
Mat. Re: Metaphysics. Thankyou for that link. I suggest you read it.
You will find this in the first paragraph.....The“science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change."
Once again Mat.... in a nutshell.... Metaphysics is what Mystics use to explain there Mystical experiences. It also refers to the theistic assumptions at the core the Scientism, such as transcendent, immutable, Laws of Nature and so forth.
Richard, though I respect your arrigance and ego about matters Zen, here you are simply wrong. if you would like to skype or I can call and explain that would be great, but its like trying to reason with a man who has read a few "Dummies "guides:)
Hi sky dancer. I'm not sure how to read your post. Are you commenting on the statement about Zen and metaphysics? Metaphysics assumes the existence of an unchanging essence, law, structure, or force,. In Zen when a teacher speaks of "true mind " or "buddha nature" she is just using skillful means. Any notion of ultimate unchanging reality is just that, a notion. This is why there is emphasis on practice. It is easy to slip into acknowledging that, while thinking "but I know there really is, Ive experienced it"... not realizing that this notion is cut from the same cloth as the prior assumptions.
Hi Richard--
We all come from different schools of Buddhism, some have bardo teachings and others do not. I think we have to take care to not make assumptions about each other.
For example, when you tell me that Zen says this or that, I know that I haven't studied zen so I have no direct experience of being at the same teaching you were and of questioning the teacher in person.
I have studied vipassana, for about five years, then the Lam Rim, for several years and have finally settled into the Nyingma-Mahayana-Vajrayana tradition for the last ten years or so.
I think some of the questions and answers that subjectivity9 is raising prompted my response. Sorry for any confusion I may be causing.
S9: Perhaps, Zen does not entertain metaphysical queries while sitting on the cushion. But, there are many great books written by Zen masters, all the way up from ancient times. Trying to say it, or write it, certainly borders on metaphysics if it doesn’t actually set out to indulge it.
A man walks into a bar, takes a seat on the next-to-last stool, turns to the empty stool right next to him, and says “Miss, can I buy you a drink?” For the rest of the evening, he chats and flirts with a non-existent woman sitting beside him. The next night, same story. And the next night, same story again. Finally the bartender comes over and asks, “Why do you keep talking to that empty stool, night after night after night?”
The man replies, “I am a physicist. I’m relying on a quantum mechanical possibility that a beautiful woman may tunnel in from some extra dimension and materialize on that stool. If that happens–well, I’ll have the inside track with her.”
“That’s ridiculous,” says the bartender. “Plenty of women come to this bar every night. You’re presentable and very articulate–if you tried to chat up one of the women here, she might be interested.”
The physicist laughs. “Yeah, right–how likely is that?”
S9: I lean heavily upon eastern, although my first 20 years of life studied western religion.
However I live with a philosophy major, and those things tend to rub off.
Peace,
S9
I don't really see why we are at such odds about the meaning of a term that's simply not in dispute in philosophy:)
Can i ask you to have a look at this list and see what we are disagreeing on. That's from the very university I spent a big chunk of my life doing metaphysics at:)
Comments
he wasnt Thai... I have asked similar questions of many Buddhists from many vehicles. Even if I hadn't my doubts would now be the same...
Some teachers can take that question and the answer will affect the quality of your awareness. In which case, this would not only be words, but a symbolic answer and possibly a mind to mind transmission. Sometimes, that's what it takes for subtle answers.
As a man who had dedicated his life to Dharma I hope he was!:)
But that's just nostalgia to me, the point is now, four or so years later, I still cant see how rebirth belongs in Dharma:)
Mat
To me they are completely related to the topic of rebirth.
As to the teacher you spoke with, the answer would come according to the teacher's level of realization and the student's receptivity.
sky
I totally believe in karma, I think I understand it as a nonmystical neccesty of this mental/moral casual world.
I dont see how karma connects with rebirth except. I have an undersatanding of how its meant to in orthodox buddhism:)
Mat
QW: That would be quite a leap and one I was not claiming. My main focus on that post was to clarify that thoughts very much can be more impactful on the entire world including the planet (industrialism and global warming) then you had given them credit. As for thoughts transcending the grave, Mat and I had this conversation earlier on this thread and we both concluded that if they do transcend the grave it is a mystical unexplaineable (to us at least) occurence. I think they might from my own experiences but I am still not sure how or even why I believe this right now.
S9: That is very poetic. But sharing an idea, isn’t quite the same as rebirth of a idea. Rebirth might call for a death, don’t you think it?
Thanks, as a writer I like to here that. You make a very valid and excellent point. According to this above stated logic, for a thought to be rebirthed it has to first end with the original thinker and then the same thought spontaneously be reborn in another thinker. James Joyce, the writer, thought that thoughts were passed on from one being to another. He would do meditative writing allowing his hand to write whatever his brain would come up with and in these experiments wrote stuff that he later found in other previous writers that he had never read. I have a hypothesis that our genetic code carries with it certain combination of thoughts and given the appropriate environment the exact same thoughts will occur in one human as another, like the herrin example I mentioned before.
Mat, what I don't get is why you are interested in talking on rebirth so much as you are convinced on your position. I understand intellectual curiosity, but you claim to be resolved on this topic. This resolution in your thoughts regarding this topic is juxtaposed with intellectual curiousty which makes you seem either illogical or inhuman. Accordingly, either you have an ulterior motive (like trying to convince us ignorant rebirthers of our follied beliefs) or you doubt your position somewhat.
They are not my standards:) They are the same standards most "logical" people use.
They certainly don't "trump" the mystical. they are simply incompatible with it.
I don't doubt my position this any more than I doubt gravity or my love for my parents:)
An altyeriour motive... well for sure I have been soul searching lots on this point, especially since this forum. Why am I here spending this time, getting all attached and involved in it? Am I some ego maniac with a messiah complex that hasn't realised that yet? I don't think so.
I guess I am pretty zealous about doubting. I think the Buddha was. The idea that his last words were "Doubt everything be your own light" is something I hold deeply inside me. it just seems the right way to approach any body of supposed truth, be it dharma, media, the news, science.....
I have doubted Dharma as much as I can, and I cannot doubt it any more... it so certain to me and I would hope to all of you too. Rebirth, in this fact alone, is radically different to Dharma to me.
mat
By your standards, I wasn't inferring anything other than the standrads you personally hold.
I don't think you doubt your position but it was one of two options I could see for your interest in this topic. I normally don't care why someone is interested in a topic but since you have brought it up so much on this forum I invested interest in your interests (I'm interested in stuff like that).
What you just said makes you seem very human and if you comunicate like that always, I think you will avoid all these distractions caused by language.
At any rate, confusion over the idea of self is my working hypothosis right now.
There are many different varieties of monks and nuns. Not all of them are scholastic or trained to be teachers.
I feel the same frustration everyone else feels in communicating with Matt. But I don't attribute it to a character failing on his part.
The problem isnt the terms themselves, its how they are used.
Professor thinks about the fact that the LAM has no training in math beyond high school algebra, no training in philosophy, and no training in physics.
Professor: "Higher physics."
LAM: thinks--"Hmmm, sounds like the professor is stumped!"
Really? Your scenerio uses assumptions just like you are making assumptions on Mat's expertise and training.
I dont think Ren is making assumptions, I think Mat's been pretty clear about his lack of interaction with Buddhist teachers and his general disregard for scripture and Buddhist academia.
Rens scenario is pretty spot on if you ask me.
Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't realized it would be interpreted that way. Clumsy on my part.
I agree with you on his disregard for scripture and Buddhist academia. I thought he claims to have spent much time 8 years speaking studying the Dharma with several advanced practitioners. I don't know though.
Ren,
the assumption I noticed is that the professor thought the LAM had no advanced mathematical training when in fact he only knew the LAM was a LAM.
Anyways, I really like what both of you say most of the time and have learned much from you.
Sky: The short answer as to 'why are these poisons etc reborn' is karma is that they are reborn because they haven't been purified.
S9: I will grant you that if we have formed strong habits that cause us suffering, they will revisit us again and again until we are able to over come them, seen through them, or build positive habits to take their place.
But anything that is truly pleasurable will also come back to visit us in the form of either desire, craving, or even addiction, as well.
I do not feel that either strongly pleasurable or grievous habits can of necessity continue beyond the grave, however, or indeed need to.
Sky: If you examine in meditation what arises in the mind from moment to moment and consider rebirth as a continuum of moment-to-moment experience then my answer may make a kind of intuitive sense.
S9: Rebirth from moment-to-moment does not prove more of the same after death.
Intuition is a knowledge that comes to us, from out of who knows where. It is something that cannot always be explained by what came before it. It is a bit like what we call insights, gift like. Have you actually had an insights into reincarnation, or are you merely basing what you think on how things happen before during this life, life being the operative word?
Obviously by extrapolating, we are merely speculating., as we might that we are going to live tomorrow like we did on so many previous days. When in fact we may be hit by a bus, and be thrown into kingdom come. : ^ (
Just my 2 cents,
And worth every penny. ; ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
He also mentioned some meditators able to remember their earliest memories in the womb and as babies and even before. He stated that in deep states the mind has the power to answer some of the mysteries like rebirth and kamma. One has to get into deep states to realize this. Then all doubts about kamma in the sense of carrying life after life are resolved.
"The memories are clear as if one remembers what one did this morning and there is no doubt."
He was directly asked if he remembered his own past lives his answer was a monk can only speak about it to another monk. The questioner would have to ask another monk about AB experience.
So it seems to get to the "truth" of the matter one needs deep tranquillity meditation which is not really Buddha's speciality of insight into impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not self. Rebirth was part of Hindu culture and this belief is not world transcending.
There is nothing inherently bad about mysticism. It isn't inherently wrong for someone to be mystical. Why would someone make finding mysticism and purging it his mission ? The discredited Truth claim of Scientism shares a certain trait with other Absolutist Truth claims, and that is a compulsion within those attached to it, to purge the world of it's polar opposite Un-truth. When someone's whole posting history has one theme, and one theme only ....purging the untruth of mysticism, and proclaiming the truth of scientific materialism, at heart there has to be a fear of not being grounded and real, which is appropriate because one cannot be. The real impetus however comes from the un-acknowledged mysticism/metaphysics (two wings of one bird) buried within his own postion, Scientism. It is a case of protesting too much. If you did not have these metaphysical assumptions hidden in your own postion, you are not be preoccupied with purging then.
I agree!
This debate hasn't been about "Is mystical bad?" but rather "Is rebirth mystical?"
I think the answer is cleanly and demonstrably "Yes, Rebirth is mystical."
That's another debate with many arguments. As said, I am faily convinced that the Buddha had that mission, but I respect the fact that many of you here are convinced he did not.
These are all just our opinions.
Richard, I have been criticisied for being a philosophical dunce in my chats with you not by you!). But you are simply wrong on your definition of metaphsyics there.
Metaphsycis is about as far as you can get from the msyctal:) Have a read of thise entry.
In the sixties the meaning got distorted by the longhairs to mean all dream-catcher kinds of new age stuff, maaan:)
When i use it I use it in its technical original and philosophical sense. We may avoid more arguments if you can be clear on this distinction.
Mat
Hi Ren
I had to think lots about that one and think its a false analogy.
I see Dharma as the wonderful complete set of truths that permeates our world from the most simple systems all the way to our complex moral and mental lives.
From any point in it you can get to any other. Just look at the Noble Truths and all they contain. The way you can "zoom" into them and see Dependent oringaintion and from that zoom into the Niddanyas. Or zoom into to the eightfold path and see how that perfectly places the experincer in the world.
Or we can zoom out from the noble truth of suffering and see how it is absolutely grounded at every level in imperminance and emptiness and interconnectivity. Moreover, we have the causal "oil" that makes it all flow and this flow can be followed from a simple system up to complex karmic networks we can never understand only experience.
This is how I see the Dharmic world, as a complete and encompassing system.
Rebirth doesn't belong in my view of this world. I have tried to make to make it fit, but it just doenst, to me.
So going back to your analogy, itsn more like:
Me, Physics Student: I understand how newtons laws of motion work and connect and connect with other laws but I do not understand why you belive the billiard balls can suddenly turn into levitating cantalopes.
Physics Professor: Higher Physics
Me: Nice Melons!
Mat
You will find this in the first paragraph.....The “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change."
Once again Mat.... in a nutshell.... Metaphysics is what Mystics use to explain there Mystical experiences. It also refers to the theistic assumptions at the core the Scientism, such as transcendent, immutable, Laws of Nature and so forth.
R: Why would someone make finding mysticism and purging it his mission?
S9: Why would someone like bowling?
It could be because bowling is their idea of fun.
Or:
Maybe doubting is a way to investigate, from another angle, and like you they want to share their findings with others; another fun thing to do.
Although calling it “a mission” might be an exaggeration on your part. : ^ )
R: The discredited Truth claim of Scientism shares a certain trait with other Absolutist Truth claims.
S9: Lets face it, everyone thinks they are right, and we often hold strong opinions on these same ideas.
An “Absolutist” is always the “Other guy.” We on the other hand are open to the facts, and just won’t change, yet. ; ^ )
R: …and that is a compulsion within those attached to it, to purge the world of it's polar opposite Un-truth. When someone's whole posting history has one theme, and one theme only ....purging the untruth of mysticism, and proclaiming the truth of scientific materialism, at heart there has to be a fear of not being grounded and real, which is appropriate because one cannot be.
S9: Ah yes, Absolutely…the human condition. : ^ (
But to be fair…maybe not. ; ^ )
R: It is a case of protesting too much.
S9: All illusion/suffering is a protest against what IS, at least as we see it at this time. Our protestation is a real impetus to move beyond or deeper than our present state. Not to many of us are beyond this need to feel we are improving.
R: If you did not have these metaphysical assumptions hidden in your own position, you are not being preoccupied with purging then.
S9: Or would be ‘Realized’ like we are…Hmmm.
Perhaps we should do better to ask ourselves…”What am I holding on to?”
Respectfully,
S9
R: Metaphysics is what Mystics use to explain their Mystical experiences.
S9: The problem being that Ultimate Experience doesn’t lend itself to words or explanations, and so Zen says, “Don’t look at my finger (explanations/words). Look where I am pointing.
Respectfully,
S9
I keep feeling like you're asking me what my Buddhist qualifications are? What do you consider real insights into reincarnation?
Where is kingdom come?
Do you feel there is anything beyond this life. Is your position when you die you die?
What do you think of the tulku phenomena?
What do you think enlightenment is?
The absolutism of Scientism. or any reductionist philosphy, is inherent. The absolutism of me, or you, or Mat is not. We can sit still and drop it.
maybe not the human condition, but definitely the condition of being deeply view attached, which we all know so well.
yes, but there is also simple projection, like the thief who sees thieves everywhere.S9[/quote]
you are quite right. But this in not just a case of finding a speck in someones eye. There is being trapped in our conceptual constructs, but there is also realizing not being trapped in our conceptual construct, at least some of time. Thats why we practice. S9[/quote]
Yes lets do that.:)
Respect back to to.
In looking at this chart I can see why this thread gets hijacked. We have some differences that are hard to overcome.
awakening. Grant your blessings that mind training may be
complete. With the direct understanding that what is ultimate
has no origin cessation or duration. It is emptiness. Yet what
arises appears from dependence or coincidence like an enchantment.
May I come to see everything and work naturally for the wellfare
of limitless beings as long as samsara lasts."
This is the end of a prayer or blessing. I think that it is
relevant to your topic in that what is ultimate neither has
origin cessation or duration. The self in buddhism is not
believed to be conditional. So either the self is unconditional
in which case it is empty. Or else you could say that there is
no permanent separate self within a conditional framework.
So you asked a wrong question. Because there is no self in the
first place as you had meant that also implies that with regards
to reincarnation that your question about 'what self reappears'
simply does not apply.
What does appear and arise comes from dependence or coincidence
like an enchantment.
This still leaves me with some questions but clearly it is not
a SELF which is reincarnated. I hope that you can see that point
clearly at least. The question remains as to what IS (or isn't
reincarnated.
Richard, though I respect your arrigance and ego about matters Zen, here you are simply wrong. if you would like to skype or I can call and explain that would be great, but its like trying to reason with a man who has read a few "Dummies "guides:)
Over to you big fella;)
And nor do you;)
But, I can teach you if you would like.
We all come from different schools of Buddhism, some have bardo teachings and others do not. I think we have to take care to not make assumptions about each other.
For example, when you tell me that Zen says this or that, I know that I haven't studied zen so I have no direct experience of being at the same teaching you were and of questioning the teacher in person.
I have studied vipassana, for about five years, then the Lam Rim, for several years and have finally settled into the Nyingma-Mahayana-Vajrayana tradition for the last ten years or so.
I think some of the questions and answers that subjectivity9 is raising prompted my response. Sorry for any confusion I may be causing.
R: Zen does not indulge in metaphysics. Period.
S9: Perhaps, Zen does not entertain metaphysical queries while sitting on the cushion. But, there are many great books written by Zen masters, all the way up from ancient times. Trying to say it, or write it, certainly borders on metaphysics if it doesn’t actually set out to indulge it.
Metaphysics meaning beyond the physical world.
Warm Regards,
S9
Hi S9
That is simply not the philosophcial meaning and this mistaken understanding is why we are in this fun but frustrating mire!:)
Metaphsyics is about time, causation, being and I guess in various subsets the philosophy of mind.
The name comes from the cataloguing of aristotles works rather than being "after" or "beyond" physics. Hence Richard's misunderstanding.
Think "after physics in the library"!:)
Mat
Thinking you can sum up metaphysical thought in one sentence is as silly as my summing up what Zen is in one sentence. It can’t be done.
I have been studying metaphysics and all of its ramifications for over 50 years. I believe I would have understood one sentence much quicker.
Maybe not. ; ^ )
That would certainly depend on what sentence that the Buddha had said to me, I guess.
But, I think you take my meaning.
Respectfully,
S9
Respect. Do you mean eastern or western?
Mat
Aristotle may have used the word, but it certainly doesn’t belong to him exclusively. There is a whole branch of philosophy called metaphysics.
And:
As I believe you know, a good deal of the metaphysical inquiry goes beyond what the mind can know.
Warm Regards,
S9
As said, I am talking about western analytical metaphysics, as has been taught in Eiropean philosophy for literally hundreds of years:)
Ontology not theology:) (Though as I am sure you know...)
Mat
Joke:
The theoretical physicist’s prayer: “Dear God, make me less arrogant–and may I remind you that the OED defines ‘arrogant’ as follows….
M: Do you mean eastern or western?
S9: I lean heavily upon eastern, although my first 20 years of life studied western religion.
However I live with a philosophy major, and those things tend to rub off.
Peace,
S9
The man replies, “I am a physicist. I’m relying on a quantum mechanical possibility that a beautiful woman may tunnel in from some extra dimension and materialize on that stool. If that happens–well, I’ll have the inside track with her.”
“That’s ridiculous,” says the bartender. “Plenty of women come to this bar every night. You’re presentable and very articulate–if you tried to chat up one of the women here, she might be interested.”
The physicist laughs. “Yeah, right–how likely is that?”
I don't really see why we are at such odds about the meaning of a term that's simply not in dispute in philosophy:)
Can i ask you to have a look at this list and see what we are disagreeing on. That's from the very university I spent a big chunk of my life doing metaphysics at:)
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG/L&M.htm
Mat