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.
the energy of consciousness
zombiegirl
beating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wasteland Veteran
all of these reincarnation threads have got me thinking, it seems that there's always someone who says, "i believe in reincarnation because energy can be neither created nor destroyed." which makes sense, but i would like to take this one step further and ask, what makes you think that consciousness is a form of energy that is different than the basic energy that keeps our bodies working, keeps our muscles flexing, keeps our organs functioning, etc? we eat food, we break it down and it becomes energy, our bodies are designed to use said energy. this is the reason i am able to get up out of bed and type this, if i didn't eat, i would become weak and lethargic.
but the real question is, why would there be an energy of consciousness (or spirit, or soul, or whatever you like to call it) that is not gained by the food cycle that will persist beyond the grave? why would the energy that stimulates our mind, the energy we often identify as "self", be any different than energy gained from food? is the brain really such an unusual organ that we say that it runs on something different than the rest of our body? is there any science to prove this?
as i see it, when we die, our energy will not be destroyed... we will decompose and provide food for worms and nutrients for the land which will become more fertile and provide home for plants. is this not still employing the concept that, "energy is neither created nor destroyed"?
but the real question is, why would there be an energy of consciousness (or spirit, or soul, or whatever you like to call it) that is not gained by the food cycle that will persist beyond the grave? why would the energy that stimulates our mind, the energy we often identify as "self", be any different than energy gained from food? is the brain really such an unusual organ that we say that it runs on something different than the rest of our body? is there any science to prove this?
as i see it, when we die, our energy will not be destroyed... we will decompose and provide food for worms and nutrients for the land which will become more fertile and provide home for plants. is this not still employing the concept that, "energy is neither created nor destroyed"?
0
Comments
the Buddha described consciousness as sense awareness, of which there are six kinds, namely, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body & mind consciousness
the life energy or life force, the Buddha called "jiva" or "ayu" rather than consciousness (vinnana)
the Pali word for consciousness, namely, vinnana, has its root in the meaning of "knowing"
or it could be that my terminology was wrongly used? i was using "consciousness" as a word for whatever it is that exists within us that makes up who we are at the core and attempting to draw a parallel between this and whatever would be transferred to the next life in reincarnation, but i'm thinking now that this term would only make sense when you are talking about this life. should i have just said soul? or perhaps, "the observer"?
http://www.floridabuddhistvihara.org/Articles/article.jsp?article_id=15
its written by a Dr. Senaka Ranasinghe, who to be honest I have never heard of. Anyway some of the things he says sound logical, I'm not so sure about some other things tough. Anyway have a read yourself, see what you think.
Metta to all sentient beings
i am not sure what you mean by "whatever it is that exists within us that makes up who we are at the core"
but later day Buddhists have asserted consciousness in reborn and developed notions & terms such as "relinking consciousness", "the bardo", etc
but the Buddha himself did not teach such things
about reincarnation or rebirth, the Buddha simply taught what one becomes in the future is dependent on the actions performed in the past
the Buddha's intention was to free human beings from suffering
for many people, believing in rebirth can help free their minds from suffering & encourage them to live without causing too much self-harm & harm to others
kind regards
DD:)
DD, i was trying to use a broad term for what people sometimes refer to as "the observer" if a person supports reincarnation, then they must believe that SOMETHING passes from this life to the next and that something would be the intrinsic you. people call this a lot of different things, such as a soul. but i think "observer" would probably be the best term i have heard of since it seems to point towards that little voice inside that you recognize as you. the ghost in the machine, or something like that.
but all this is sort of beside the point. my real question is why people support reincarnation with the concept that energy is neither created nor destroyed. to do so seems to imply that they believe that this observer/soul/whatever IS energy. and if that were so, then i wonder why this energy is somehow different and behaves in such a way that it can transcend lifetimes.
my personal view of the body and the mind is that it is simply a machine. just like the stomach's purpose is to break down food, the brain's purpose is to create thoughts and dialogue. the brain tricks us into thinking that there is more to it, that there is a self contained somewhere within, but it is simply carrying out it's own function. without the brain, there is no concept of self. and if you were to damage the brain, the self would change as well. injury to the frontal lobe, for example, can sometimes cause psychotic behavior. it makes me think that there is no self or soul or observer and we are all simply a manifestation of our particular brain, which could potentially change over time. this idea definitely doesn't lean toward any sort of inner observer that is capable of transcending lifetimes.
It can be quite clear consciousness doesn't drive itself. It can't stand on it's own. Consciousness is happening with a cause. As DD pointed out, the Buddha didn't teach about a continuous everlasting consciousness. That's where the subtle difference between reincarnation and rebirth lies. The subtle difference not a lot of people can really grasp. So let me try to explain my view on this, might give you something to comtemplate.
A lot of traditions in Buddhism believe in rebirth. But they also say: Nobody really gets born, and nobody really dies. But there still is the process happening, you can see it with your own eyes. If somebody is death and you see his body, that is not the one you knew. Something has changed in them. Where did it go?
What drives it, this process of birth and death? It's our karma. Let's make an analogy. If somebody really loves milkshakes, they will buy them and get back to the Mc. Donalds a lot to buy them again. The craving for the milkshake drives them. They are like addicts who say the drugs have taken them over, it's not really their choice anymore. They keep coming back to the milkshake. It's the attachment to it that is a part of their karma to keep coming back. Time and time again, an endless samsara of milkshakes.
The same can be said about rebirth. If you are attached to life, your karma will get you reborn. It's not really you, like the craving for a milkshake is not the person who drinks a milkshake. If you can see through this and understand it is not really you who is reborn, you also understand that's the reason why the Buddha taught the way out of rebirth. And luckily karma doesn't just stand on itself, you can have an influence on it by meditation.
But how it works exactly in full detail, nobody really knows. The Buddha said it should not be pondered about too much. And that's why there are so much arguments on the subject and slightly different interpretations between various schools.
Also I see you make the analogy that the brain is the mind, who says this is true? I would say the brain is the body.
But to summarize: Consciousness is not the energy that provides new birth, it's karma, attachments.
With metta,
Sabre
You see this happening ALL the time, especially with quantum physics. Poor quantum physics has been hijacked for every sort of nonsense theory out there. Unless someone is a physicists trying to teach you quantum physics then listen, anyone else you can be sure they are wrong.
"Also I see you make the analogy that the brain is the mind, who says this is true? I would say the brain is the body."
Can you imagine one thing separate from another if they are the same thing? ie. can you imagine a smile without a body? Obviously not, because the smile is part of the body. So imagine you wake up one morning, groggy as usual and you stumble in to the bathroom. You look up at the mirror and you dont see anything. You dont see your body at all. Havent you just imagined your mind without the body? So couldnt we conclude that the mind and the body are separate?
Good one for correcting me a bit there. The mind and body are not separate, indeed. But neither are they the same thing. You can actually 'see' the mind without a body. Not in a mirror, of course
If you are interested Matthieu Ricard and Allan Wallace (both Monks) have written and said interesting things about this subject.
Sabre
i am aware of the difference between reincarnation and rebirth, and this is why i specifically referred to reincarnation in my thread. but it seems that even the concept of rebirth requires a certain amount of faith. i do find myself wondering what the point is of supporting the concept of rebirth. i can frequently see the result of my actions in this lifetime, good and bad. it makes me wonder why i would need to believe that the karma will transcend to the next lifetime as well.
but perhaps, to not believe in rebirth would mean that i likewise did not believe in enlightenment, because there would be no cycle to escape. i will have to think about this a bit. it seems i have increasingly become more and more realist and i have trouble accepting anything that cannot be proven. i tend to be a rather gullible person, so i think i am trying to counteract this by scrutinizing everything with a skeptical eye. i was once duped into following a religion that had a lot of illogical beliefs. i felt taken advantage of and somewhat embarrassed when i awoken to this reality and i simply do not want this to happen again. but thus far, i have not been able to put my faith in anything without answers. i'm not sure if this is helpful for me though, it actually makes me feel pretty disenchanted with most things. ric, you definitely summed up exactly what my problem with the theory was. people seem to think that energy cannot be destroyed, so naturally, reincarnation exists. but my problem was that the energy DOES go somewhere. scientifically, we already know this... so why would this theory point to evidence of reincarnation? i was waiting for someone to hop on here with a point i hadn't thought of, but now i see that i was simply confused because it isn't possible and doesn't make sense in the first place. hah.
It's simply not relevant to the concept - like gravity.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)#Rebirth_as_cycle_of_consciousness )
Like a teacher once replied when his student asked him: "What happens after we die?"
Teacher: "I don't know"
Student: "But you should know, you are the teacher!"
Teacher: "Yes, but I'm not the dead teacher!"
haha
The second clue would be impermanence. Everything has a tendency to move towards a highly disorganized state, so no matter what changes you make, the state is one of similar disorganization. You, on the other hand, are highly organized and any small change to the organism has a much bigger impact.
This describes a ball thrown upwards and slowing to a peak and then returning downwards.
All of the energy is converted but it is all observed relationships. There is no such thing as inherently existing energy. It is all observed phenomina.
As the Buddha stated, you sow the seeds of your karma day by day, life by life. They may ripen the next day, the next life or 1,000 lifetimes into the future. You can dilute your karma by following the dharma and being a genuinely decent human being, but you cannot fix it.
The Buddha taught rebirth because it promotes morality. If there is "nobody" reborn, then what incentive would there be to do good?
All of the rebirth teachings in the suttas teach an actual person is reborn.
If "not-self" is reborn, the rebirth teachings lose their purpose & effectiveness.
Metta to all sentient beings
If your referring to the Kalama Suttra then not everyone interprets it this as straight forward as some people make out.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/10162/implications-of-the-kalama-suttra-for-modern-buddhism#Item_9
Metta to all sentient beings
Nobody is grasping at straws (except your mind).
I have posted these suttas time & time again