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.
Rebirth/reincarnation
It is my view that "birth" in Buddhism has nothing whatsoever to do with physical birth, but it refers to the birth of the false "I", which repeatedly occurs in non-Buddhas. Likewise "Ageing and death" refers to the natural ending of happiness that is associated with attachments. These things happen moment by moment.
I've made a video which outlines my disagreement with the popular view of rebirth, and I welcome responses from the people here. I do realize that not all Buddhists believe in the literal interpretation, and that many Buddhists have no opinion on the matter at all.
Nonsense in Buddhism II
I've made a video which outlines my disagreement with the popular view of rebirth, and I welcome responses from the people here. I do realize that not all Buddhists believe in the literal interpretation, and that many Buddhists have no opinion on the matter at all.
Nonsense in Buddhism II
0
Comments
Is this an attempt to further the concious development of other beings? Are you being a curmudgeon?
I am one of those who holds little value in either side of the debate... as I see it as a distraction for some, and motivation to transcend suffering for others. The truth is only expounded by clearly viewed experience... the rest is myth and opinion.
while this is not my opinion on reincarnation, i do see its value.
Robert Thurman didn't do a good job of presenting his point. He seemed like he was in a hurry, and someone caught him on the run.
"rebirth" isn't the birth of the "false I". Rebirth is the subtle consciousness carrying the seeds of past karmic actions into a new body. The "false I" is something that the growing child learns, and is taught and reinforced by the growing baby's and infant's parents.
Mind is, in fact, independent of the brain. Scientists have discovered that mind is non-local, it's not localized to the brain. It's part of the fabric of the universe.
(Does anyone think the speaker might be DD, who always used to get on Ajahn Brahm's case?)
The speaker is not DD !
.
Wanderer I don't get your motivation in being here. If you are antagonistic to Buddhism why waste your time here?
Obviously you are much too smart for me to associate with.
Is this typical of the kind of things going on at newbuddhist?
Anyway, it's not the opinion that bugs me as much as the method of expression. And I don't dig taking pot shots at a senior monk like that. I don't see the need or the point.
Wanderer is not the first self-professed Buddhist who has scoffed at rebirth and he won't be the last. No biggie. I think Buddhists can have an intelligent and respectful discussion about it. I would just hope it can be done a bit more skillfully.
I think the closest the OP has been to anything beyond mere speculation about conception, childbirth, child-rearing, aging/illness, death, and the limits of human consciousness...
is laughably playing with candles....
and perhaps getting burned.
Shrug.
He'll see for himself. Everyone does eventually.
So, it comes down to the intent of his video. From there, I could give more succinct feedback as to whether or not I feel the video does what he hopes it will do. He wanted feedback, yes?
The questions still stand, Wandering, if you have interest in answering.
I've found its very helpful (at least for me) to understand the purpose of art before assuming it does or doesn't do something effectively.
If he's only interested in the way his points stand within the minds of others, he could search the many posts and read how people feel. That's why I feel it matters there isn't really any new information... his view is a common enough one, so it seems appropriate to give feedback on his art.
Or not, if he doesn't want it.
That’s why the example of the candle (the Buddhist one) is used.
The flame of consciousness continues when one candle lights the other. And that’s what – supposedly – happens when a body dies. The flame is transferred to another candle.
This new candle does not have to possess a physical body as we understand it. To complicate things there are Dewa’s and Brahma Gods; they do not live in the physical realm but they can fuel the flame of consciousness. (All of this again is my understanding of what is taught; not my opinion of what is the case)
The Buddhist point is that there is no independent and unchanging entity (a self) which is moving from one candle to another.
I think it is unlikely that the Buddha really taught something radically different from what his devout followers have been saying about that through the ages.
If one wants to argue for such a major shift in the interpretation of his teachings, they should give a start of some historic evidence for it (imho).
Theory of consciousness is very interesting stuff and it’s not finished business yet.
So the example of extinguished candle in the video is a bit of a simplification.
-I think Ajahn Brahm could be wrong – within the framework of his tradition – when he says the mind can exits independently from any body.
- Ajahn Brahm is a trained scientist. I find it disappointing when he talks far too lightly about “evidence” and “proof.”
-Wanderer makes a pretty wild claim that almost the entire Buddhist tradition is actually wrong about what the Buddha taught.
-Theory of consciousness is unfinished business; but would be looking mostly at neural correlates of consciousness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
My personal opinion is that consciousness is a function of the brain and it will end when the brain stops functioning.
That’s most likely not what the Buddha taught. And that’s fine.
I think I can be a Buddhist in the twenty-first century. I can be a Buddhist without adopting the magical image of the world people had in the time of the Buddha.
Religions need to adapt. Our understanding of the world changes and we need to examine our religions in the light of this changed understanding.
I believe that the Buddha's teachings on rebirth have been commonly interpreted by Buddhist teachers, such as Brahm and the Dalai Lama, to mean the exact opposite of what the Buddha intended.
I think the Zen Master Dogen had the right idea when he said "Just as firewood does not revert to firewood once it burns to ash, so a person does not return to life after death."
That is the exact message I was attempting to convey in my video. There is only the continuity of cause and effect. Nothing else.
You said:"Mind is, in fact, independent of the brain. Scientists have discovered that mind is non-local, it's not localized to the brain. It's part of the fabric of the universe. "
Can you explain this to me or point to where I can learn more about this?
,
As far as scientists discovering that the mind is non-local, I don't think so. The mind is certainly not independent of it's locality but that is merely common sense and hardly a scientific discovery.
Frankly, I did not find your argument and candle demonstration very convincing as a refutation either. Not enough to form a view of the reality of what happens at death, by far.
I don't think that birth in Buddhism needs any further explanation where it clearly points to conventional birth of the body/mind and the self that it conditions.
Rebirth definitely needs a closer look because of the inconsistency of suggesting that a self arising in dependence on mind/body can be born repeatedly.
I think that if one can get past that hurdle, then discussing rebirth is reasonable.
Personally, I can't make a strong argument either way.
@robot, buddha specifically says that the self is not any of the skandas. Including form, sensation, perception, substance of mind - conditioning, consciousness.
None of those things is a self.