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.
How can rebirth exist when it goes against scientific laws?
First of all, your question is indecipherable to some degree - what specifically are you referring to when you say "rebirth?" What do you mean when you say "exists?" Which "scientific laws" are you accepting as a measure of truth? Secondly, it comes across as discourteous and disrespectful.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2013
I tend to think it works like instinct. But then I think the universe in our entirety runs on a kind of instinct. Natural selection and junk.
Somehow we are born just knowing things. Human infants are born with rooting, sucking and grasping reflexes... How does the body know what to do? We don't recall where the information comes from but it is there.
A brain formed may hold mind as a drop holds water.
Home in the far clouds; A path of least resistance. Smooth or rough as shards.
Until there is a point of reference, up and down doesn't fly.
I believe that each of us is not only reborn with all sensory and physical change but with every birth of any being.
I hope that makes sense to somebody... I just did a double shift.
Mind is not produced from the body, Mind is a formless mental continuum, Body and mind are linked but they are not the same, The mind can travel to the moon and back in an instant but the body cannot, If the mind was an aspect of the body for example the brain then it goes without saying that flesh and blood can also possess the many unique qualities of the mind which is ridiculous, When the mind develops love and compassion it therefore follows that flesh and blood is capable of developing love and compassion, if you believe the brain is the mind this is a mistaken materialist view.
Mind is not produced from the body, Mind is a formless mental continuum, Body and mind are linked but they are not the same, The mind can travel to the moon and back in an instant but the body cannot, If the mind was an aspect of the body for example the brain then it goes without saying that flesh and blood can also possess the many unique qualities of the mind which is ridiculous, When the mind develops love and compassion it therefore follows that flesh and blood is capable of developing love and compassion, if you believe the brain is the mind this is a mistaken materialist view.
OK, I'm interested in your answer, can you understand that what you're saying is an unsupported belief? It might be true, or it might not, but do you expect other people to find it compelling? Simply stating your belief is true and everything else is a mistaken view is not the same as providing evidence. Again, I find it a matter of faith.
And of course the brain with its neuron network is not the same thing at all as muscle and blood and saying the mind is a product of the brain is not the same thing as saying your blood produces a mind. However, people did once believe the heart contained our emotions and our personality was determined by the blood and other vital fluids in our body. It's amazing what beliefs people once declared with complete certainty were true when it comes to the mind, and still do.
Nature is a fact. Science is an educated guess. One that is often right, but not to be confused with the stuff and processes it describes and the stuff and processes themselves.
If nature is fact, then it cannot be law; since fact cannot change, but law can. Scientific fact circa 18th century; The human body cannot withstand the pressure placed on it, past twenty five miles per hour. But yet, scientific fact is that the human body has been subjected to forces past 6 g's. So, has fact been disproved, or has law? :coffee:
How can rebirth exist when it goes against scientific laws?
I think what TheEccentric is trying to say is that science cannot prove rebirth and therefore, there is not evidence to support the claim.
So isn't the obvious answer just "faith"?
Believe in it or not, but without hard proof, it's just faith. But as others have stated, it's not necessary and it's actually not encouraged either. Rebirth is one of those pesky imponderables, after all...
Blind Faith claptrap is the reason I left Christianity, there is no point in believing what you have no evidence for.
How can rebirth exist when it goes against scientific laws?
I think what TheEccentric is trying to say is that science cannot prove rebirth and therefore, there is not evidence to support the claim.
So isn't the obvious answer just "faith"?
Believe in it or not, but without hard proof, it's just faith. But as others have stated, it's not necessary and it's actually not encouraged either. Rebirth is one of those pesky imponderables, after all...
Blind Faith claptrap is the reason I left Christianity, there is no point in believing what you have no evidence for.
I don't think you should believe anything that you are uncomfortable with. Just move on.
"People often turn to religion for doctrines that provide simple answers to difficult questions. Buddhism doesn't work that way. Merely believing in some doctrine about reincarnation or rebirth has no purpose. Buddhism is a practice that enables experiencing illusion as illusion and reality as reality.
The Buddha taught that our delusional belief in "me" causes our many dissatisfactions with life (dukkha). When the illusion is experienced as illusion, we are liberated".
2
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
How can rebirth exist when it goes against scientific laws?
I think what TheEccentric is trying to say is that science cannot prove rebirth and therefore, there is not evidence to support the claim.
So isn't the obvious answer just "faith"?
Believe in it or not, but without hard proof, it's just faith. But as others have stated, it's not necessary and it's actually not encouraged either. Rebirth is one of those pesky imponderables, after all...
Blind Faith claptrap is the reason I left Christianity, there is no point in believing what you have no evidence for.
See, but that's the beauty of Buddhism... It actually doesn't ask you to. Personally, I'm just unconcerned with rebirth. It'll happen or it won't, but that doesn't have much effect on my life atm. Although, for some people, the idea that our karma influences our next life might be a useful deterrent against actions which create negative karma. In the Skillful Means chapter of The Lotus Sutra, it is explained that the Buddha uses different methods of teaching to reach different people. This is my view of it anyways, some might disagree.
All the Buddhas of the past expounded the teachings for the sake of sentient beings, using incalculable and innumerable skillful means and various explanations and illustrations. These teachings were all for the sake of the single Buddha-vehicle. All these sentient beings, hearing the Dharma from the Buddhas, finally attained omniscience…Having understood the various desires and deep-rooted inclinations of sentient beings, I teach the Dharma according to their capacities through the power of skillful means, using various explanations and illustrations. O Shariputra! I do this in order to make them attain the omniscience of the single Buddha-vehicle. O Shariputra! Since there is no second vehicle in the worlds of the ten directions, how could there be a third!
I'm curious about how you get from "Blind Faith claptrap is the reason I left Christianity, there is no point in believing what you have no evidence for" to "All the Buddhas of the past"?
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
As it was explained to me, the entire Lotus Sutra IS a form of skillful means... It uses extremely grandiose images of stupas unfathomably high covered in diamonds and the sky rains flower petals etc etc etc. I don't think we were ever supposed to believe that the LS was anything other than an allegory.
There is much that we have faith in on a daily basis. We just have our previous experience to back it up and make a leap to "I can expect this will happen tomorrow."
I have faith that the sun will rise, that the mail will come, that everyone in my house will be alive come morning, that the earth will still be there a year from now, that my husband will have a job tomorrow. Why do I have faith in these things? Because my past experience has told me it will be so. My experiences elsewhere in life tell me that rebirth is fairly plausible. That doesn't mean it is the same for everyone, and that is ok. Because of my experiences and reading and research and conversation, I have faith that rebirth exists. I am not so sure it exists the way it is taught in a lot of Buddhism (I do not, for example, believe that we are literally reborn in animal or hell or God realms) but I believe in some sort of rebirth. I have faith, because of what I have learned. Just like I have faith that the floor is not going to fall out from under my couch in the next 3 minutes. But different people have different experiences and teachings and so on. No one is *asking* you to have blind faith in anything. No one is going to come to your house and say "hey, you, we hear you are Buddhist but don't believe in rebirth. Please turn in your Buddhist membership card." That's the nice thing about Buddhism. No one except you really cares what you believe, or don't believe, about it.
If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:
The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)
The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.
^^the sentence 'fundamentally weak' could only be established uing one of those bedrock assumption.
I don't think so-- pointing out the logical contradiction sufficiently reveals it as weak. The Pyrrhonist skeptics and Nagarjuna have some interesting commonalities.
Rebirth does not go against the scientific laws. In fact, rebirth is very much in harmony with the scientific laws. When one speaks about rebirth, one does not refer to the reincarnation process. This is because there is no permanent grasping of soul or body during the rebirth process. It means even though the mentioned cycle of process is repeated, every cycle is different from one another, just like the saying, ‘It looks like me, sounds like me, but it is still not me.’ In other words, there are linkages between the past, the present and the future of an individual but there is no trans-migration process taking place. A clear example would be how the genetic lineage works for generations.
In Buddhism, rebirth refers to evolving consciousness or stream of consciousness of a person upon death and the consciousness arising in the new person is neither identical to, nor entirely different from, the old consciousness, but forms part of a causal continuum or stream with it. The basic cause for this persistent re-arising of personality is the abiding of consciousness in ignorance; when ignorance is uprooted, rebirth ceases. For general understanding, awareness is a ground condition that ‘supports’ consciousness. The nature of awareness is effulgence and it is in a not-knowing state before the appearance of object. Consciousness, on the other hand, is appearance of objects in the mind. When awareness touches on objects, consciousness would arise simultaneously. Consciousness is naturally looking outward to objects and it is flitting all the time.
In addition, consciousness is synergy i.e. energy that expands through cooperation. Synergy is a key to the geometric expansion of consciousness and thus the arising of its two terms i.e. prevailing consciousness and subtle consciousness. Therefore, when one speaks about consciousness, one speaks about energy. On the contrary, mind is a pattern of consciousness which is born from awareness. In fact, mind is known as consciousness in individuality. Therefore, the origin of individuality is the same as the origin of the mind. Mind is something more objective and involves clear discrimination – differentiates and understands the characteristics of objects. One utilises mind to understand things because mind understands the manipulation of consciousness.
When one ponders as a subject on the other side of the object or matter, one would notice that energy takes on various forms and reborn all the time since energy can neither be created nor destroyed as per the Law of Conservation of Energy. In the dependent nature, everything or anything (physical or non-physical) that exists is nothing but energy. And energy is nothing but a mere element of vibration. The basic level of a matter is energy. The basic level of energy is vibration. Therefore, matter is a vibrating mass of energy in which the different frequency of vibration would determine the shape and the size of it. So energy and matter are both referring to the same thing - both reflected in different forms per se. Just like cause and effect are the same things - both reflected in a different time of events.
According to the Einstein’s formula, E = mc2, energy can be generated by enforcing a matter into a circumstance of extremely high rate of vibration. At the same time, a matter can be formed by compressing energy into a circumstance of extremely low rate of vibration. In the material Universe, this is how we clarify that something arises as in object is not out of nothing but arises out of the energy elements that exist in a system. And dependent nature of phenomena is a necessary pre-requisite for energy or matter to exist; without it, the energy or matter would be impossible. As such, every existence does contain with the three basic elements - energy, matter and space. These basic elements would subject to the balance and the imbalance phenomena. Under a balance phenomenon, these elements would start to integrate with each other to create an aggregate activity. Under an imbalance phenomenon, these elements would start to disintegrate from each other to create a segregate activity.
Balance leads to stability. Stability leads to aggregation. Aggregation leads to agitation. Agitation leads to information. Information leads to knowledge. Knowledge leads to representation. Representation leads to memory. Memory leads to compulsion. Compulsion leads to ignorance. Ignorance leads to blindness. Blindness leads to disorientation. Disorientation leads to confusion. Confusion leads to irrationality. Irrationality leads to impulse. Impulse leads to sparkle. Sparkle leads to inkling. Inkling leads to volition. Volition leads to awareness. Awareness leads to consciousness. Consciousness leads to manas. Manas leads to mind and body. Mind and body lead to sensation. Sensation leads to six sense bases. Six sense bases lead to conductivity. Conductivity leads to contact. Contact leads to stimulation. Stimulation leads to feeling. Feeling leads to experience. Experience leads to craving. Craving leads to grasping. Grasping leads to clinging. Clinging leads to unsettling. Unsettling leads to becoming. Becoming leads to creation. Creation leads to birth. Birth leads to energising. Energising leads to mobility. Mobility leads to hauling. Hauling leads to aging. Aging leads to draining. Draining leads to death. Death leads to fragility. Fragility leads to segregation. Segregation leads to diffusion. Diffusion leads to imbalance. Imbalance leads to adjustment. Adjustment leads to alignment. Alignment leads to new balance.
Once again, everything in the material Universe is made up of energy. Atoms and molecules are made up of energy. Our bodies, our clothes, our cars, our houses are all made up of energy but what makes them different is their vibration. Energy is always vibrating at a different frequency under the influences of conditional phenomena. Everything has its own vibrational frequency – our thoughts, our feelings, the rock, the table, the car, the animal, the plant, the tree, etc. Even colours are merely expressions of certain vibrational frequencies. These scenarios are guided by a system of universal law known as the Law of Vibration.
If one refers to the cycle of Dependent Origination, manas that unfolds against a backdrop of consciousness (preliminary) is an architect or a designer that activates mind and body creations. Mind and body are simply two aspects of the same thing. Manas would vibrate in a certain unique frequency – a wave of collated high and low vibrations. This blueprint of vibrations would subsequently bring forth the conflation of mind and body. The principle in effect: the lower the frequency, the slower the vibration; the higher the frequency, the faster the vibration. Slower vibration would lead to the body and the sense bases formation and faster vibration would lead to the mind formation. Collectively, it brings about a new life existence with a unique individuality that would not allow the disruption by any kind of external interference; thus it maintains a self-identity. In other words, mind and body are present in every created thing as one integrated whole. Even an atom has a kind of mind that is unique or individualised. The nucleus of the atom, around which electrons vibrate in standing waves, constitutes the atom’s individuality. As a result, one atom distinguishes from another atom – just as one person is different from another person or as one thing is different from another thing.
Nevertheless, the mind is comprised with two terms i.e. prevailing conscious and subtle conscious. And once again, consciousness is nothing but a mere element of synergy. Synergy is generally defined as the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc. In other words, synergy is energy that expands through cooperation and it is a key to the geometric expansion of consciousness. Both prevailing and subtle mind consciousnesses would arise in the sentient beings but for other things, merely subtle mind consciousness would arise. In addition, it is the mind, the consciousness of individuality, which holds together the atoms and molecules as one integrated body in a life time. Scientifically, the atoms are held together by covalent chemical bonds but the synergies of it would give rise to the mind, the consciousness of individuality. For general understanding, subtle mind consciousness does not consume as much energy as prevailing mind consciousness. Subtle conscious mind can process and store information without a lot of work or intervention of prevailing conscious mind. In other words, subtle mind consciousness could operate in the absence of prevailing mind consciousness with the least of energy consumption on 24 hours/day and 365 days/year - this would mean a plenty of energy reserves for prolonging the lifespan of a body in a life time.
When the nervous system in the new body is formed (for sentient beings), sense consciousness would arise simultaneously. Sense consciousness is a subtle synergy resulted from the interaction of the subtle mind consciousness in the new body i.e. the electrochemical transmission along the neurons throughout the nervous system. And this synergy arising is in accordance with the yin-yang principle that states: ‘Yin creates Yang and Yang activates Yin’. Synonymously, subtle mind consciousness is yin and sense consciousness is yang - just as a state of total yin is reached, yang begins to grow. Yin contains seed of yang and vice versa.
Moreover, the central nervous system especially the brain would comprise with the highest density of neurons in the entire nervous system of the new body and this circumstance would give rise to another type of synergy identified as prevailing mind consciousness – a prevalent synergy. Both prevailing and subtle mind consciousnesses are also known as consciousness of individuality. Therefore, the origin of individuality is the same as the origin of the mind. In addition, mind consciousness (prevailing and subtle) and brain are symbiotic, one never exists without the other. The brain is actually a coagulated form of the conflated prevailing and subtle conscious mind itself - just as water looks like ice, the mind looks like the brain, and the body. With high density of neurons, the brain could perform a variety of complex functions beside transmitting signals and sending messages to each other parts of the body. Among the complex functions are controlling, regulating, analysing, organising, wishing, interpreting, memorising, etc. – for these complex functions are basically, the roles of prevailing and subtle mind consciousnesses.
In fact, for over 90% of the time in a lifespan, the body is administered by subtle mind consciousness and it simply operates like a radar detector – sensing all spectrums of vibrational frequencies from the surroundings and across the time stream (past, present and future). As such, one would notice that an enlightened subtle mind consciousness would operate like a long range radar detector which is highly luminous and vigilant to any development of circumstances and surpassing time. When one has reached the maturity of a lifespan, mind and body would go through a dying process, inevitably. And the first type of consciousness to depart the body would be prevailing mind consciousness. In the sentient beings, the prevailing mind consciousness that bonds strongly the atoms and the molecules together would die out and evolve into other energies concurrently. This incidence would lead to an impulse occurrence with a demonstration of a final burst of energy nearing the death moments. Subsequently, the segregation process would conquest with most of the subtle mind consciousness departing the death body.
For an ignorant being, during a disintegration process, the prevailing conscious aggregate or so-called the ‘chain of conscious’ aggregate would die out and the force of Ignorance (an outward tendency force) would overcome the force of Awakening (an inward tendency force). The subtle conscious aggregate would then liberate into fragments. The amount of liberated fragments is very much dependent on the level of Ignorance or Awakening within the being. And for an ignorant being, the level of Ignorance would surpass the level of Awakening and this would mean the intensity of Ignorance is higher than the intensity of Awakening. A higher intensity of Ignorance would mean a higher intensity of becoming. A higher intensity of becoming would mean a higher amount of liberated fragments. On the other hand, for an awakened being, the amount of liberated fragments is much lesser than an ignorant being because there is lower intensity of Ignorance as compared with the intensity of Awakening. Also, the dispersion of liberated fragments is more confined and restricted to much fewer new individuals.
Last of all, during segregation process, sense consciousness and the lingering subtle mind consciousness would evolve into other energies concurrently with the body decomposing process. At the end of the day, the fragmented subtle mind consciousness with some retained subtle information within the subtle memory aggregates would sustain freedom of sorts and waiting for the next alignment process and the new balance phenomena to arise, thus depicting the continuous flow or repeating cycle of birth, life, death and re-birth - known as samsāra.
@riverflow, at the very root you would have to establish logic. I am not too informed but I am pretty sure that nothing can be proven apriori (without axioms). I think Bjerkely (sic) argued like that.
It doesn't go against scientific laws because there is no scientific law that says what does or does not happen after you die.
According to science, your body decomposes (if buried) or is turned to ash (cremation), then returns to the earth ecosystem. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
As for your "mind", I believe the dominant scientific paradigm holds that mind/consciousness emerges from purely physical processes, and us such, will cease when those structures (brain, nervous system) are broken down after death.
I don't think this clashes with rebirth though, if you consider rebirth as a continual "coming into being" process. Seen this way, we are "reborm" every moment.
If you need proof of rebirth, look in the mirror, then at a childhood photo of yourself.
I don't believe that rebirth has to remain a matter of faith. The many sages who teach rebirth seem to have had some certainty about it. I have faith in them as evidence that rebirth does not have to remain an article of faith. So I'm agnostic on rebirth, but not on out ability to learn the truth about it.
"Nevertheless, the mind is comprised with two terms i.e. prevailing conscious and subtle conscious."
In college, one of the smartest teachers I ever had in a Psychology class told us something like this at the beginning:
"Your textbook is full of descriptions and diagrams of the mind. We will be talking about how the mind is an iceberg of barely controlled impulses with the biggest part subconscious repressed desires. We will be talking about how the mind is a pyramid of needs with self-actualization at the very top. We will be talking about how the mind is composed of conditioned responses. The important thing to remember is that none of it is true. In physics, you learned that atoms are tiny bundles of protons and neutrons with electrons whirling around the center like tiny planets. It's not true. Atoms are not like that at all. But atomscan be thought of like that to help you understand how they function. In the same way, the mind is not actually like any theory you read about. Don't confuse an imaginary construct for reality."
No, the mind isn't actually composed of prevailing and subtle consciousnesses and this subtle consciousness that we're not conscious of continues on to the next body. It's not really a big pile of skandhas where here we have a couple of memories and here we have a bit of consciousness and they're all piled up into a big heap. It's not really a bright mirror that's been smeared with dirty behavior and thoughts. But it can be thought oflike all that to help understand how the mind works.
So what is the mind, exactly, if it's not really any of these things?
Now we enter the realm of Zen.
Where am I going with this? Heck if I know. It's going to be a very hot day in Michigan and the dogs already are panting. Hope your day goes well.
Science has yet to fully confirm how the brain supports the consciousness. It's getting closer, but science for now simply speaks of electrical impulses between brain cells and the interaction between these and hormones and chemicals. How all this leads to emotions and a sense of 'being' is still not entirely understood.
Beyond that, the 'part' of a person that gets 'reincarnated' is the part in question. It is currently still entirely faith-based. No way for science to 'detect' anything other, so it must be purely subjective for now, as with the majority of spirituality and religion.
Have you ever felt deja vu? Felt a 'resonance' with some other or ancient culture you've looked into? Felt a connection to someone beyond simple friendship, someone who feels familiar even though you've not known them for a long time?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
.... Have you ever felt deja vu? Felt a 'resonance' with some other or ancient culture you've looked into? Felt a connection to someone beyond simple friendship, someone who feels familiar even though you've not known them for a long time?
Yes, and scientists have come up with some extremely interesting findings.
What causes déjà vu? One side of your brain is usually 'in charge' of a particular skill – for example, in most people, the left side of the brain deals with language. One explanation for déjà vu is that there is a split-second delay in transferring information from one side of the brain to the other. One side of the brain would then get the information twice – once directly, and once from the 'in charge' side. So the person would sense that the event had happened before.
Deja vu, I don't think is nearly the same as connections with things we never learned about. People who can go to a place they've never been and know their way around, know the street names and the houses and such. People who know words and phrases in foreign languages they've never been exposed to. Deja vu is a weird sensation but it's the not same as those examples.
OK thanks you guys I am now more open to rebirth but will remain skeptical.
It is a hidden object that cannot be normally perceived, Buddha and other accomplished beings can see such subtle objects and in turn by distilling the mind the same way they have done one shall eventually see what they have seen.
I don't know if rebirth excists, however I do know that scientific laws are adjusted, changed, reformulated and expanded plus new ones are found throughout the ages.
Approaching rebirth as an objective fact which one believes or does not believe I think indicates a misunderstanding of Buddhist doctrines and how they function. Understanding Buddhist doctrines as a belief hinders rather than helps practice. Buddhism operates as a means to foster non-attachment to views, not accumulate more views! Either they aid in one's own Buddhist practice, or they do not, at least at a particular point in one's practice. And if they do not work for you right now, then do not use that tool. But keep it handy for future reference because one day it may click. No need to be doctrinaire (pro or con) about Buddhist doctrines!
I wrote this in my journal some time ago , reflecting on this aspect of Buddhist practice:
Buddhist doctrines are not meant to provide objective information about the world “out there.” Even when these doctrines happen to coincide with scientific discoveries, it must be remembered that the methodology and aims of science are very different from those of Buddhism. The truth that the scientific method discovers is conceptual. Within the context of science, this is certainly laudable. Such discoveries may even help one’s understanding of Buddhism. But science cannot prove Buddhism to be “true”—this is to misunderstand the purpose of Buddhism, its practices, and its doctrines.
The “truth” of Buddhism lies in insight—and this insight is not a concept: it cannot be replicated; it cannot be grasped. It is neither “objective” nor “subjective.” It can only be real-ised intimately through the lifelong process of self-inquiry and daily mindfulness. Buddhist doctrines function as upaya, skillful means. They are like lenses designed to bring clarity to self-inquiry. They are insightful methods to examine our perceptions and thoughts. Approaching Buddhist doctrines as information about the world is to not real-ise their fullest potential—in fact, as information, these doctrines are reduced to just another view about reality. This can potentially lead to dogmatism, which is counterproductive in learning non-attachment (including non-attachment to views)...
...The Buddhadharma is a path upon which one walks—it is not a body of “correct information” that one should simply agree with. Rather, Buddhist doctrines provide a means of skillfully guiding oneself one step at a time down the path of awakening understanding and compassion.
Buddhism provides a methodology full of many different skillful means to accomodate many different obstacles of a wide variety of people. Looking to science to back up Buddhism empirically misses the point of what Buddhist doctrines do in the context of practice. Lifted out of that context, arguing about rebirth (whether it is objectively true with scientific backing or not at all) has little purpose-- except to argue about something "out there." Insight takes a more productive route.
I wouldn't say the concept of rebirth exactly goes against scientific understanding, I'd say that science doesn't really concern itself with metaphysical speculation, so it no more disproves rebirth than it does God or heaven/hell, kami, tao etc.
My personal opinion is that rebirth and karma are artifacts that found their way into Buddhist dogma simply due to being prevalent at the time and place Buddha lived, and which he could use to make certain points regarding his philosophy. I personally don't see any reason to accept the premise that I'm accruing karmic seeds through my actions that will cause another being to be born when I die, and I don't really see it's application in the dharma beyond a motivational concept. I also think if Buddha had been born in Judea he would have used the Torah as material for explaining his philosophy, if in Britain then Druidic mythology, if Australia then the Dreamtime would be a central concept of the dharma. It just so happened that the society he grew up in had philosophies that were helpful to his Awakening but also superstitions that the majority of the people he encountered held - he may even have assumed they were universal truths himself, as we do that gravity is caused by mass warping spacetime, most of us don't understand it we just accept it as truth.
Approaching rebirth as an objective fact which one believes or does not believe I think indicates a misunderstanding of Buddhist doctrines and how they function. Understanding Buddhist doctrines as a belief hinders rather than helps practice. Buddhism operates as a means to foster non-attachment to views, not accumulate more views! Either they aid in one's own Buddhist practice, or they do not, at least at a particular point in one's practice. And if they do not work for you right now, then do not use that tool. But keep it handy for future reference because one day it may click. No need to be doctrinaire (pro or con) about Buddhist doctrines!
I wrote this in my journal some time ago , reflecting on this aspect of Buddhist practice:
Buddhist doctrines are not meant to provide objective information about the world “out there.” Even when these doctrines happen to coincide with scientific discoveries, it must be remembered that the methodology and aims of science are very different from those of Buddhism. The truth that the scientific method discovers is conceptual. Within the context of science, this is certainly laudable. Such discoveries may even help one’s understanding of Buddhism. But science cannot prove Buddhism to be “true”—this is to misunderstand the purpose of Buddhism, its practices, and its doctrines.
The “truth” of Buddhism lies in insight—and this insight is not a concept: it cannot be replicated; it cannot be grasped. It is neither “objective” nor “subjective.” It can only be real-ised intimately through the lifelong process of self-inquiry and daily mindfulness. Buddhist doctrines function as upaya, skillful means. They are like lenses designed to bring clarity to self-inquiry. They are insightful methods to examine our perceptions and thoughts. Approaching Buddhist doctrines as information about the world is to not real-ise their fullest potential—in fact, as information, these doctrines are reduced to just another view about reality. This can potentially lead to dogmatism, which is counterproductive in learning non-attachment (including non-attachment to views)...
...The Buddhadharma is a path upon which one walks—it is not a body of “correct information” that one should simply agree with. Rather, Buddhist doctrines provide a means of skillfully guiding oneself one step at a time down the path of awakening understanding and compassion.
Buddhism provides a methodology full of many different skillful means to accomodate many different obstacles of a wide variety of people. Looking to science to back up Buddhism empirically misses the point of what Buddhist doctrines do in the context of practice. Lifted out of that context, arguing about rebirth (whether it is objectively true with scientific backing or not at all) has little purpose-- except to argue about something "out there." Insight takes a more productive route.
Odd, you say that Buddhadharma is not a body of "correct information." Then why do they call the Four Noble Truths the Four Noble Truths? Are you saying that they may not be true? If they're false then why would anyone practice?
Practice brings about meaningful insight. The truth of insight comes from experience rather than an external, empircal confirmation, which one measures and verifies in some objective sense. No one can awaken for you, and no amount of believing in a doctrine will make that happen. The key lies in practice, and Buddhism provides tools for it.
Franz Kfaka put it this way: "Truth is what every man needs in order to live, but can obtain or purchase from no one. Each man must reproduce it for himself from within, otherwise he must perish. Life without truth is not possible. Truth is perhaps life itself."
Truth is alive and we have emotions about it. It is fluxional. It's not a big blob of 'emptiness' rather there is a highly structured order and mandalas where the mandala is the process of how thought goes from one state to another (again fluxional). And also the truth is both manifest and non-manifest.
An example of the non-manifest is unmanifested compassion that can be unlocked when we realize that compassion and understanding go together.
Uh, you're still talking about truth, Riverflow, as one would expect on a religious forum.
Yes, the Four Noble Truths... not the Four Noble Facts. I see no issue here.
No issues. In science, facts, truths or laws are tenuous. They last only as long as they prove useful or reliable. In religion, Truths must always be True.
To me, first, Buddhadharma is far more than just the 4NT. Second, to me, truths are things that much be individually put to your own tests. Even if you judge them to be the absolute truth, that doesn't mean they can be scientifically proven as fact. Truth is more than simply information. Limiting the Buddhadharma to information seems incorrect to me. It is not meant to be correct or incorrect information. It is an experience, which is why it has to be practiced. It is not simply something you learn like multiplication tables via rote memorization. It is a progressive practice and thus a progressive, gradual understanding.
To me, first, Buddhadharma is far more than just the 4NT. Second, to me, truths are things that much be individually put to your own tests. Even if you judge them to be the absolute truth, that doesn't mean they can be scientifically proven as fact. Truth is more than simply information. Limiting the Buddhadharma to information seems incorrect to me. It is not meant to be correct or incorrect information. It is an experience, which is why it has to be practiced. It is not simply something you learn like multiplication tables via rote memorization. It is a progressive practice and thus a progressive, gradual understanding.
Interesting, but it's not clear if you're comparing this to anything. Science, for instance, is completely pragmatic, and is concerned with reliable results rather than mere stories (information).
Well, in the end a good scientific theory is a story, albeit it may be a very likely one. Whereas a truth is certain knowledge. If it is not certain knowledge then, as far as we are concerned, it is a story.
The scientific method doesn't rest on theories, that's only one of the first steps. If a theory proves unviable it won't become a scientific law. Religion is different because religion serves different needs. If a religious truth is proved false it doesn't matter, because religion only needs to be meaningful, it doesn't need to be true.
Approaching rebirth as an objective fact which one believes or does not believe I think indicates a misunderstanding of Buddhist doctrines and how they function. Understanding Buddhist doctrines as a belief hinders rather than helps practice. Buddhism operates as a means to foster non-attachment to views, not accumulate more views! Either they aid in one's own Buddhist practice, or they do not, at least at a particular point in one's practice. And if they do not work for you right now, then do not use that tool. But keep it handy for future reference because one day it may click. No need to be doctrinaire (pro or con) about Buddhist doctrines!
I wrote this in my journal some time ago , reflecting on this aspect of Buddhist practice:
Buddhist doctrines are not meant to provide objective information about the world “out there.” Even when these doctrines happen to coincide with scientific discoveries, it must be remembered that the methodology and aims of science are very different from those of Buddhism. The truth that the scientific method discovers is conceptual. Within the context of science, this is certainly laudable. Such discoveries may even help one’s understanding of Buddhism. But science cannot prove Buddhism to be “true”—this is to misunderstand the purpose of Buddhism, its practices, and its doctrines.
The “truth” of Buddhism lies in insight—and this insight is not a concept: it cannot be replicated; it cannot be grasped. It is neither “objective” nor “subjective.” It can only be real-ised intimately through the lifelong process of self-inquiry and daily mindfulness. Buddhist doctrines function as upaya, skillful means. They are like lenses designed to bring clarity to self-inquiry. They are insightful methods to examine our perceptions and thoughts. Approaching Buddhist doctrines as information about the world is to not real-ise their fullest potential—in fact, as information, these doctrines are reduced to just another view about reality. This can potentially lead to dogmatism, which is counterproductive in learning non-attachment (including non-attachment to views)...
...The Buddhadharma is a path upon which one walks—it is not a body of “correct information” that one should simply agree with. Rather, Buddhist doctrines provide a means of skillfully guiding oneself one step at a time down the path of awakening understanding and compassion.
Buddhism provides a methodology full of many different skillful means to accomodate many different obstacles of a wide variety of people. Looking to science to back up Buddhism empirically misses the point of what Buddhist doctrines do in the context of practice. Lifted out of that context, arguing about rebirth (whether it is objectively true with scientific backing or not at all) has little purpose-- except to argue about something "out there." Insight takes a more productive route.Just wanted to say, this was a fantastic post. Thank you.
The scientific method doesn't rest on theories, that's only one of the first steps. If a theory proves unviable it won't become a scientific law. Religion is different because religion serves different needs. If a religious truth is proved false it doesn't matter, because religion only needs to be meaningful, it doesn't need to be true.
I suppose some people take this approach. Then they can believe in any old thing that suits them. Personally, I would say that religion is concerned with discovering truth while science is concerned with creating theories. At any rate, I could never be content with a religious doctrine that I think is not true, and cannot see how an untrue doctrine could ever be meaningful.
Comments
First of all, your question is indecipherable to some degree - what specifically are you referring to when you say "rebirth?" What do you mean when you say "exists?" Which "scientific laws" are you accepting as a measure of truth? Secondly, it comes across as discourteous and disrespectful.
Somehow we are born just knowing things. Human infants are born with rooting, sucking and grasping reflexes... How does the body know what to do? We don't recall where the information comes from but it is there.
A brain formed may hold mind as a drop holds water.
Home in the far clouds;
A path of least resistance.
Smooth or rough as shards.
Until there is a point of reference, up and down doesn't fly.
I believe that each of us is not only reborn with all sensory and physical change but with every birth of any being.
I hope that makes sense to somebody... I just did a double shift.
And of course the brain with its neuron network is not the same thing at all as muscle and blood and saying the mind is a product of the brain is not the same thing as saying your blood produces a mind. However, people did once believe the heart contained our emotions and our personality was determined by the blood and other vital fluids in our body. It's amazing what beliefs people once declared with complete certainty were true when it comes to the mind, and still do.
So isn't the obvious answer just "faith"?
Believe in it or not, but without hard proof, it's just faith. But as others have stated, it's not necessary and it's actually not encouraged either. Rebirth is one of those pesky imponderables, after all...
Blind Faith claptrap is the reason I left Christianity, there is no point in believing what you have no evidence for.
I don't think you should believe anything that you are uncomfortable with. Just move on.
What's the Point?
"People often turn to religion for doctrines that provide simple answers to difficult questions. Buddhism doesn't work that way. Merely believing in some doctrine about reincarnation or rebirth has no purpose. Buddhism is a practice that enables experiencing illusion as illusion and reality as reality.
The Buddha taught that our delusional belief in "me" causes our many dissatisfactions with life (dukkha). When the illusion is experienced as illusion, we are liberated".
See, but that's the beauty of Buddhism... It actually doesn't ask you to. Personally, I'm just unconcerned with rebirth. It'll happen or it won't, but that doesn't have much effect on my life atm. Although, for some people, the idea that our karma influences our next life might be a useful deterrent against actions which create negative karma. In the Skillful Means chapter of The Lotus Sutra, it is explained that the Buddha uses different methods of teaching to reach different people. This is my view of it anyways, some might disagree.
I have faith that the sun will rise, that the mail will come, that everyone in my house will be alive come morning, that the earth will still be there a year from now, that my husband will have a job tomorrow. Why do I have faith in these things? Because my past experience has told me it will be so. My experiences elsewhere in life tell me that rebirth is fairly plausible. That doesn't mean it is the same for everyone, and that is ok. Because of my experiences and reading and research and conversation, I have faith that rebirth exists. I am not so sure it exists the way it is taught in a lot of Buddhism (I do not, for example, believe that we are literally reborn in animal or hell or God realms) but I believe in some sort of rebirth. I have faith, because of what I have learned. Just like I have faith that the floor is not going to fall out from under my couch in the next 3 minutes. But different people have different experiences and teachings and so on. No one is *asking* you to have blind faith in anything. No one is going to come to your house and say "hey, you, we hear you are Buddhist but don't believe in rebirth. Please turn in your Buddhist membership card." That's the nice thing about Buddhism. No one except you really cares what you believe, or don't believe, about it.
The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)
The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
"The text deconstructs itself" so they say...
In Buddhism, rebirth refers to evolving consciousness or stream of consciousness of a person upon death and the consciousness arising in the new person is neither identical to, nor entirely different from, the old consciousness, but forms part of a causal continuum or stream with it. The basic cause for this persistent re-arising of personality is the abiding of consciousness in ignorance; when ignorance is uprooted, rebirth ceases. For general understanding, awareness is a ground condition that ‘supports’ consciousness. The nature of awareness is effulgence and it is in a not-knowing state before the appearance of object. Consciousness, on the other hand, is appearance of objects in the mind. When awareness touches on objects, consciousness would arise simultaneously. Consciousness is naturally looking outward to objects and it is flitting all the time.
In addition, consciousness is synergy i.e. energy that expands through cooperation. Synergy is a key to the geometric expansion of consciousness and thus the arising of its two terms i.e. prevailing consciousness and subtle consciousness. Therefore, when one speaks about consciousness, one speaks about energy. On the contrary, mind is a pattern of consciousness which is born from awareness. In fact, mind is known as consciousness in individuality. Therefore, the origin of individuality is the same as the origin of the mind. Mind is something more objective and involves clear discrimination – differentiates and understands the characteristics of objects. One utilises mind to understand things because mind understands the manipulation of consciousness.
When one ponders as a subject on the other side of the object or matter, one would notice that energy takes on various forms and reborn all the time since energy can neither be created nor destroyed as per the Law of Conservation of Energy. In the dependent nature, everything or anything (physical or non-physical) that exists is nothing but energy. And energy is nothing but a mere element of vibration. The basic level of a matter is energy. The basic level of energy is vibration. Therefore, matter is a vibrating mass of energy in which the different frequency of vibration would determine the shape and the size of it. So energy and matter are both referring to the same thing - both reflected in different forms per se. Just like cause and effect are the same things - both reflected in a different time of events.
According to the Einstein’s formula, E = mc2, energy can be generated by enforcing a matter into a circumstance of extremely high rate of vibration. At the same time, a matter can be formed by compressing energy into a circumstance of extremely low rate of vibration. In the material Universe, this is how we clarify that something arises as in object is not out of nothing but arises out of the energy elements that exist in a system. And dependent nature of phenomena is a necessary pre-requisite for energy or matter to exist; without it, the energy or matter would be impossible. As such, every existence does contain with the three basic elements - energy, matter and space. These basic elements would subject to the balance and the imbalance phenomena. Under a balance phenomenon, these elements would start to integrate with each other to create an aggregate activity. Under an imbalance phenomenon, these elements would start to disintegrate from each other to create a segregate activity.
The principle in effect: -
The Cycle of Dependent Origination
Balance leads to stability. Stability leads to aggregation. Aggregation leads to agitation. Agitation leads to information. Information leads to knowledge. Knowledge leads to representation. Representation leads to memory. Memory leads to compulsion. Compulsion leads to ignorance. Ignorance leads to blindness. Blindness leads to disorientation. Disorientation leads to confusion. Confusion leads to irrationality. Irrationality leads to impulse. Impulse leads to sparkle. Sparkle leads to inkling. Inkling leads to volition. Volition leads to awareness. Awareness leads to consciousness. Consciousness leads to manas. Manas leads to mind and body. Mind and body lead to sensation. Sensation leads to six sense bases. Six sense bases lead to conductivity. Conductivity leads to contact. Contact leads to stimulation. Stimulation leads to feeling. Feeling leads to experience. Experience leads to craving. Craving leads to grasping. Grasping leads to clinging. Clinging leads to unsettling. Unsettling leads to becoming. Becoming leads to creation. Creation leads to birth. Birth leads to energising. Energising leads to mobility. Mobility leads to hauling. Hauling leads to aging. Aging leads to draining. Draining leads to death. Death leads to fragility. Fragility leads to segregation. Segregation leads to diffusion. Diffusion leads to imbalance. Imbalance leads to adjustment. Adjustment leads to alignment. Alignment leads to new balance.
Once again, everything in the material Universe is made up of energy. Atoms and molecules are made up of energy. Our bodies, our clothes, our cars, our houses are all made up of energy but what makes them different is their vibration. Energy is always vibrating at a different frequency under the influences of conditional phenomena. Everything has its own vibrational frequency – our thoughts, our feelings, the rock, the table, the car, the animal, the plant, the tree, etc. Even colours are merely expressions of certain vibrational frequencies. These scenarios are guided by a system of universal law known as the Law of Vibration.
If one refers to the cycle of Dependent Origination, manas that unfolds against a backdrop of consciousness (preliminary) is an architect or a designer that activates mind and body creations. Mind and body are simply two aspects of the same thing. Manas would vibrate in a certain unique frequency – a wave of collated high and low vibrations. This blueprint of vibrations would subsequently bring forth the conflation of mind and body. The principle in effect: the lower the frequency, the slower the vibration; the higher the frequency, the faster the vibration. Slower vibration would lead to the body and the sense bases formation and faster vibration would lead to the mind formation. Collectively, it brings about a new life existence with a unique individuality that would not allow the disruption by any kind of external interference; thus it maintains a self-identity. In other words, mind and body are present in every created thing as one integrated whole. Even an atom has a kind of mind that is unique or individualised. The nucleus of the atom, around which electrons vibrate in standing waves, constitutes the atom’s individuality. As a result, one atom distinguishes from another atom – just as one person is different from another person or as one thing is different from another thing.
Nevertheless, the mind is comprised with two terms i.e. prevailing conscious and subtle conscious. And once again, consciousness is nothing but a mere element of synergy. Synergy is generally defined as the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc. In other words, synergy is energy that expands through cooperation and it is a key to the geometric expansion of consciousness. Both prevailing and subtle mind consciousnesses would arise in the sentient beings but for other things, merely subtle mind consciousness would arise. In addition, it is the mind, the consciousness of individuality, which holds together the atoms and molecules as one integrated body in a life time. Scientifically, the atoms are held together by covalent chemical bonds but the synergies of it would give rise to the mind, the consciousness of individuality. For general understanding, subtle mind consciousness does not consume as much energy as prevailing mind consciousness. Subtle conscious mind can process and store information without a lot of work or intervention of prevailing conscious mind. In other words, subtle mind consciousness could operate in the absence of prevailing mind consciousness with the least of energy consumption on 24 hours/day and 365 days/year - this would mean a plenty of energy reserves for prolonging the lifespan of a body in a life time.
When the nervous system in the new body is formed (for sentient beings), sense consciousness would arise simultaneously. Sense consciousness is a subtle synergy resulted from the interaction of the subtle mind consciousness in the new body i.e. the electrochemical transmission along the neurons throughout the nervous system. And this synergy arising is in accordance with the yin-yang principle that states: ‘Yin creates Yang and Yang activates Yin’. Synonymously, subtle mind consciousness is yin and sense consciousness is yang - just as a state of total yin is reached, yang begins to grow. Yin contains seed of yang and vice versa.
Moreover, the central nervous system especially the brain would comprise with the highest density of neurons in the entire nervous system of the new body and this circumstance would give rise to another type of synergy identified as prevailing mind consciousness – a prevalent synergy. Both prevailing and subtle mind consciousnesses are also known as consciousness of individuality. Therefore, the origin of individuality is the same as the origin of the mind. In addition, mind consciousness (prevailing and subtle) and brain are symbiotic, one never exists without the other. The brain is actually a coagulated form of the conflated prevailing and subtle conscious mind itself - just as water looks like ice, the mind looks like the brain, and the body. With high density of neurons, the brain could perform a variety of complex functions beside transmitting signals and sending messages to each other parts of the body. Among the complex functions are controlling, regulating, analysing, organising, wishing, interpreting, memorising, etc. – for these complex functions are basically, the roles of prevailing and subtle mind consciousnesses.
In fact, for over 90% of the time in a lifespan, the body is administered by subtle mind consciousness and it simply operates like a radar detector – sensing all spectrums of vibrational frequencies from the surroundings and across the time stream (past, present and future). As such, one would notice that an enlightened subtle mind consciousness would operate like a long range radar detector which is highly luminous and vigilant to any development of circumstances and surpassing time. When one has reached the maturity of a lifespan, mind and body would go through a dying process, inevitably. And the first type of consciousness to depart the body would be prevailing mind consciousness. In the sentient beings, the prevailing mind consciousness that bonds strongly the atoms and the molecules together would die out and evolve into other energies concurrently. This incidence would lead to an impulse occurrence with a demonstration of a final burst of energy nearing the death moments. Subsequently, the segregation process would conquest with most of the subtle mind consciousness departing the death body.
For an ignorant being, during a disintegration process, the prevailing conscious aggregate or so-called the ‘chain of conscious’ aggregate would die out and the force of Ignorance (an outward tendency force) would overcome the force of Awakening (an inward tendency force). The subtle conscious aggregate would then liberate into fragments. The amount of liberated fragments is very much dependent on the level of Ignorance or Awakening within the being. And for an ignorant being, the level of Ignorance would surpass the level of Awakening and this would mean the intensity of Ignorance is higher than the intensity of Awakening. A higher intensity of Ignorance would mean a higher intensity of becoming. A higher intensity of becoming would mean a higher amount of liberated fragments. On the other hand, for an awakened being, the amount of liberated fragments is much lesser than an ignorant being because there is lower intensity of Ignorance as compared with the intensity of Awakening. Also, the dispersion of liberated fragments is more confined and restricted to much fewer new individuals.
Last of all, during segregation process, sense consciousness and the lingering subtle mind consciousness would evolve into other energies concurrently with the body decomposing process. At the end of the day, the fragmented subtle mind consciousness with some retained subtle information within the subtle memory aggregates would sustain freedom of sorts and waiting for the next alignment process and the new balance phenomena to arise, thus depicting the continuous flow or repeating cycle of birth, life, death and re-birth - known as samsāra.
As for your "mind", I believe the dominant scientific paradigm holds that mind/consciousness emerges from purely physical processes, and us such, will cease when those structures (brain, nervous system) are broken down after death.
I don't think this clashes with rebirth though, if you consider rebirth as a continual "coming into being" process. Seen this way, we are "reborm" every moment.
If you need proof of rebirth, look in the mirror, then at a childhood photo of yourself.
In college, one of the smartest teachers I ever had in a Psychology class told us something like this at the beginning:
"Your textbook is full of descriptions and diagrams of the mind. We will be talking about how the mind is an iceberg of barely controlled impulses with the biggest part subconscious repressed desires. We will be talking about how the mind is a pyramid of needs with self-actualization at the very top. We will be talking about how the mind is composed of conditioned responses. The important thing to remember is that none of it is true. In physics, you learned that atoms are tiny bundles of protons and neutrons with electrons whirling around the center like tiny planets. It's not true. Atoms are not like that at all. But atomscan be thought of like that to help you understand how they function. In the same way, the mind is not actually like any theory you read about. Don't confuse an imaginary construct for reality."
No, the mind isn't actually composed of prevailing and subtle consciousnesses and this subtle consciousness that we're not conscious of continues on to the next body. It's not really a big pile of skandhas where here we have a couple of memories and here we have a bit of consciousness and they're all piled up into a big heap. It's not really a bright mirror that's been smeared with dirty behavior and thoughts. But it can be thought oflike all that to help understand how the mind works.
So what is the mind, exactly, if it's not really any of these things?
Now we enter the realm of Zen.
Where am I going with this? Heck if I know. It's going to be a very hot day in Michigan and the dogs already are panting. Hope your day goes well.
Beyond that, the 'part' of a person that gets 'reincarnated' is the part in question. It is currently still entirely faith-based. No way for science to 'detect' anything other, so it must be purely subjective for now, as with the majority of spirituality and religion.
Have you ever felt deja vu? Felt a 'resonance' with some other or ancient culture you've looked into? Felt a connection to someone beyond simple friendship, someone who feels familiar even though you've not known them for a long time?
I wrote this in my journal some time ago , reflecting on this aspect of Buddhist practice: Buddhism provides a methodology full of many different skillful means to accomodate many different obstacles of a wide variety of people. Looking to science to back up Buddhism empirically misses the point of what Buddhist doctrines do in the context of practice. Lifted out of that context, arguing about rebirth (whether it is objectively true with scientific backing or not at all) has little purpose-- except to argue about something "out there." Insight takes a more productive route.
I wouldn't say the concept of rebirth exactly goes against scientific understanding, I'd say that science doesn't really concern itself with metaphysical speculation, so it no more disproves rebirth than it does God or heaven/hell, kami, tao etc.
My personal opinion is that rebirth and karma are artifacts that found their way into Buddhist dogma simply due to being prevalent at the time and place Buddha lived, and which he could use to make certain points regarding his philosophy.
I personally don't see any reason to accept the premise that I'm accruing karmic seeds through my actions that will cause another being to be born when I die, and I don't really see it's application in the dharma beyond a motivational concept. I also think if Buddha had been born in Judea he would have used the Torah as material for explaining his philosophy, if in Britain then Druidic mythology, if Australia then the Dreamtime would be a central concept of the dharma. It just so happened that the society he grew up in had philosophies that were helpful to his Awakening but also superstitions that the majority of the people he encountered held - he may even have assumed they were universal truths himself, as we do that gravity is caused by mass warping spacetime, most of us don't understand it we just accept it as truth.
Odd, you say that Buddhadharma is not a body of "correct information." Then why do they call the Four Noble Truths the Four Noble Truths? Are you saying that they may not be true? If they're false then why would anyone practice?
Franz Kfaka put it this way: "Truth is what every man needs in order to live, but can obtain or purchase from no one. Each man must reproduce it for himself from within, otherwise he must perish. Life without truth is not possible. Truth is perhaps life itself."
An example of the non-manifest is unmanifested compassion that can be unlocked when we realize that compassion and understanding go together.
Second, to me, truths are things that much be individually put to your own tests. Even if you judge them to be the absolute truth, that doesn't mean they can be scientifically proven as fact. Truth is more than simply information. Limiting the Buddhadharma to information seems incorrect to me. It is not meant to be correct or incorrect information. It is an experience, which is why it has to be practiced. It is not simply something you learn like multiplication tables via rote memorization. It is a progressive practice and thus a progressive, gradual understanding.
Obligatory Monty Python reference.
[LINK]