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.
Are viruses reborn?
If all sentient things are reborn, are viruses?
And if not, where is the cut of point?
Molluscs?
Monkeys?
Fish, like whales?
Thanks for your thoughts on this issue:)
And if not, where is the cut of point?
Molluscs?
Monkeys?
Fish, like whales?
Thanks for your thoughts on this issue:)
0
Comments
So... you are saying that viruses are sentient things (beings).
IMHO, the Buddha did not give a "list" of sentient beings for reference purposes. It is, therefore, obvious that each Buddhist practitioner must decide or rather "know" for her/him-self whether a thing or being has "sentience" and is thus a sentient being. When in doubt, a Buddhist will err on the side of "cautious" meaning.
That is all .....
I don't know, they are less sentient than us for sure:)
OK, so about badgers?
:P
sure?
100%?
or
<100%?
Mtns
The rebirth teachings are meant to aid in an understanding of core Buddha Dhamma concepts. In the end, no written words are Truth. The understandings of the core concepts need to be realized, beyond words and theories and philosophies.
If it isn't Buddha Dhamma for you and everyone else, then it isn't Buddha Dhamma. If something points a person towards these core understandings, then it is Buddha Dhamma for them. If it doesn't work for you, simply let it go.
Could be wrong though.
Viruses are a nasty type of biological organisms. They don't have life, they don't breathe, they don't really feed. They only multiply on a host organism in which the viruses "born" in the multiplication process, kill the host. And yes, they don't have consciousness. And because they don't have life, they don't get to be reborn.
OK, I guess I am sold on that. Viruses are not reborn.
So the line is somewhere between viruses and badgers.
What do you think about shrimp?
Shrimp...shrimp is a sort of food (the Vietnamese one) ??
This thread is about the reincarnation of the viruses.
But c'mon, this death, aftre-life, reincarnation stuff is something that no one can know for sure. What if the soul doesn't exist, what if when we die , we die and all goes black/white or whatever ??
Also, this thred related to viruses can be a good starting point for a life-death debate;)
I don't believe rebirth is compatible with evolution, at least I cannot see how it is. If I believe in rebirth it is as something mystical:)
And no, I am not trying to mock anyone:)
Mat
Have you not read Mat's previous threads about rebirth? :skeptical
I have never and will never convince anyone that there is either rebirth or no rebirth. Perhaps you misunderstood what I said?
Then what is this thread about? It's certainly not about evolution.
Good.
If we share the same evolutionary tree as viruses and if we believe that humans and mammals are subject to rebirth and viruses are not, then there is a very real question, which life-forms are subject to rebirth, and which are not?
What would the Buddha answer to that question, I wonder?
Salome:)
No, I haven't read Mat's previous posts about rebirth. No, I didn't misunderstood you, or maybe I did. About this rebirth stuff, is something that I should study more, after being more mentally mature.
Evolution has some ties with the process of thinking (I guess so). Meaning that, the more evolved an organism is , the more conciousness it has. Something like that.
I think that makes sense, doesn't it. I am more concious than a monkey, I imagine HH The Dalai Lamma is more concious than me:)
Wait , wait , wait! The Dalai Lama is just as human as the rest of humanity is, but I guess he is a lot more spiritually and mentally developed than the rest of us.
Now,all humans are more mentally developed than the monkeys. Our prime advantage in the jungle was our ability to think and estimate the situation. And the evolution for the humans just leaned upon using logic and knowledge to adapt and survive. And so we gained conciousness (a lot of it) and dropped our animal instincts(not all of them). So , the next step into our evolution would be an evolution of the thinking process, not a physical(bodily) one.
Elemental reaction> sensitivity> mentation> thought and feeling.
Consciousness/ interiority doesnt just appear, it emerges slowly. The distinction between "living matter" and "dead matter" is behaviour, not its constituent elements.
Conciousness isn't a switch that is "on" or "off".
It is a gradient realised in aggregate,
In some it is more realised than in others.
Part of the middle way is to train and exercise ones conciousness?
That question has no single answer:) Some say it was our thumbs, others the pelvis, others language and some think it was cooking meat. Its probably a bit of all:)
And, we can hope, a moral evolution:)
Yes, the middle path is indeed a training session for conciousness.(tell that to the criminal who lacks conciousness and only lives to kill, and the kill lives to be killed by the criminal
The evolution is just a theory. No one knows for sure if that is exactly what happened in the distant past.(scientist will surely call me an irrational being for this statement)
A moral evolution seems to be far far away from humanity, or even inexistent for us. Just, live in Romania for a year, and you'll know what I'm talking about.
This is a common mistaken argument by creationists that "evolution is just a theory":)
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
Do you mean logical certainty? I agree? We know for sure that we all shared a common ancestor that was similar to a virus:)
Evolution is not rationally in dispute:)
Hell, yeah, that site gets it right. But I quit the creationist theory because it sounded like some unviersal magician planted in seven days the whole world. No, it didn't happen like that.
As for the common ancestor yeah, the primordial cell.To think of that... We actually came after some chemical reactions, in which RNA and then DNA chains were created( I may be wrong here again, school is to blame).
The idea that sentient creatures can be reborn involves two assumptions (on my part). First, a sentient being is one that is conscious and second, rebirth implies the transmission of consciousness from one physical body to another. So, it could be argued that your question is concerned with the nature of consciousness.
<O:p</O:p
If we could know the nature of consciousness that survives the death of the human body (if any), then we would be in a much better place to discuss the consciousness of other creatures. In short, I can’t answer your question. It would take someone with a deep insight into the nature of consciousness to answer the question it and I don’t know if such a person exists.
<O:p</O:p
I think there are some things that can be said about consciousness though. Neuroscience assumes that consciousness emerges entirely from the physical structure of the brain, which implies that when the body dies then consciousness disappears completely. Many Buddhists believe that some form of consciousness survives the death of the body. If I understand it (and I don’t really), then this consciousness is not the thinking brain, but it is a base from which thoughts arise. Apparently, to realise this consciousness is to experience the oneness that connects us all, and to experience the oneness is to be filled with love. I’ve never experienced it so I have no personal knowledge of it.
<O:p</O:p
Part of what makes us different to other creatures is that we have evolved self-reflective consciousness, which is the ability to think about ourselves and this gives rise to a sense of self. Some people have called this a “higher consciousness”, but from a Buddhist perspective the self is an illusion and higher consciousness is about seeing through the delusions of the thinking mind and the self it creates, so that the ultimate truth (the oneness) can be experienced.
<O:p</O:p
According to science the universe began with the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago and life on Earth evolved about 3.5 billion years ago, but for the first 2.5 billion years consisted only of micro-organisms (which presumably were not sentient). So on a cosmic timescale, sentient creatures are a relatively recent development. If there is some kind of universal consciousness that is unborn and eternal then I don’t know what it was doing for all the time before sentient creatures evolved, but it suggests that this consciousness does not depend on life. On the other hand, plants are not sentient, so life is not necessarily dependent on consciousness (if plants are regarded as being sentient then the moral basis of vegetarianism is in trouble). If life does not depend on this eternal consciousness and eternal consciousness does not depend on life, then what is its relationship with human existence? <O:p></O:p>
It’s a mystery to me (but then doubt is good because it keeps me open-minded).
Viruses are not "nasty" organisms. They are part of life. They are part of the universe, and always have been. There are many viruses that don't cause any disease whatsoever. Not all viruses kill the host (like the common cold, for instance). Those viruses are extremely rare.
You could say exactly the same things about any living organism - all they want to do is feed and reproduce.
As to whether they are "alive" or not, that is still very much an open question in the scientific community. It's really a moot point however, because we know they exist, and we know they are capable of reproducing and carrying on their genetic lines. Is that "life"? Does it really matter? As I noted above, I don't think they are sentient, but that's another matter entirely.
Mtns
(Just kidding)
... and viruses don't practice the Dharma and they can't awaken!
In that case...
May you and your sanga (viruses) quickly attain nirvana.
(Just kidding also.... )
Palzang
Palzang, I often have you in my mind when I think of the kind of Buddhist who is the opposite of me. In the same way as I don't call your love for lineages "silly" please respect those who which to approach dharma differently to you:)
Thank you,
Mat
Palzang was not calling your approach to the dharma "silly." You are putting words in his mouth.
Your reductionism is a common attempt to understand something that is extremely complex by reducing it to its parts. This practice only lends itself to more confusion. We lose sight of our original goal. (what was it anyway?)
We must accept that there are some things that we don't know. I don't know if viruses are sentient. I would guess that they are not. However, we will never come to realize a fine line where sentience "begins." If the goal is to know which animals to be nice to and which we can kill without remorse, well...we should probably err on the side of caution.
We just simply will not be able to come to a conclusion on the matter, and it would be silly to try to do so.
Perhaps the concept: "the universe" started with and is sustained by consciousness. Nevertheless, there is a very real basis to which "the universe" refers to.
Yeah, the universe started with the motion of an atom of existence which had super-consciousness:D. To get the idea, a Romanian poet told us that this world is just the illusion created by the void.
I agree:) Buddhist often seem to mistake the idea that "the mind is the forerunner of all experiences" as some kind of bizarre idealist notion that there is no word outside of experiences.
What does it mean for something to exist if there is nothing to experience its existence? Reality does not exist within objects. Reality exists in the perception of objects. The same thing is true for time.
"Common sense" may help us organize our material world, but it is not an irrefutable truth.
You are confusing "x exists" with "x is experienced." Think hard on that, on what the difference means, and you will be on the way to your answer:)
The Buddha says there are no objects. There are no inherent truths. I am not sure what you expect the contrary, " Realisty exists in objects" to mean:)
Are you saying that if something is not perceived it's not real. That's a pretty kookie reality you must be in!:)
Why would you say that? Can you explain that? Are you aware of the distinction between time and the experience of time?
What do you think of the idea that the Buddha says that Dharma is eternal truth? How does that gel with your kookie idealism?:)
Mat
Or vote for ignorance to the matter and smoke a big zen one;)
But some of us want to know what is at the base of Dharma, why would you have anything against that?
Don't forget, Zen is new too!;)
Yes, it is very tempting to feel that because there are individual conscious beings, there's this abstract thing called consciousness existing independently upon causes and conditions.
But we know from our own experience that consciousness depends upon many factors. Said another way, the necessary causes must exist prior to the development of consciousness.
The universe or reality does not all exist in our heads.