g

14/10/2558 Dharma Wheel • View topic Are Karma and Rebirth Real?

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678&start=220 1/13

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana BuddhismSearch… SearchAdvanced search

Are Karma and Rebirth Real?Forum rulesPost a replySearch this topic… Search773 posts • 2 of 39 • 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 39Report this post (./report.php?f=66&p=63480)Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=63480)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63480)by deepbluehum » Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:47 pm

I don't think so really. He is illustrating fluidity in world constructions.

You are blending a lot here. I'm not disagreeing with any of this part. I'm not advocatingsolipsism. Rather, I am highlighting the fluidity of world constructions.

Again, science takes builds up a world by testing theoretical propositions with experimentaldata observed by the senses and/or collected inferentially from instrumentation. Whereas,dharma works with the relationship between sense data, emotions and consciousness; theseare just taken at face value to be "the world."

TopReport this post (./report.php?f=66&p=63933)Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=63933)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63933)by Spiny Norman » Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:28 pm

Acchantika wrote:Wittgenstein's self‐refuting "philosophy as a language game" is meantnihilistically. Not in a soap‐bubble kind of way.

We still have to establish what contitutes a "valid vantage point" with language,logic etc.

The relationship between thought, language and behaviour is something theBuddha taught. You can’t be deep blue hum without bright red ah.

The “information innately present” is wide‐open to misidentification to thosewho abandon proper method and reify beliefs based on faith without evidence.No amount of semantic gymnastics about relative viewpoints will evade thisobservation. Conceptual attachment and conceptual abandonment are bothextreme attitudes. “There are rules, Neo”.

http://dharmawheel.net/search.php

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678&start=220

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=109&t=12768#p166491

http://dharmawheel.net/posting.php?mode=reply&f=66&t=5678

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678








http://dharmawheel.net/report.php?f=66&p=63480

http://dharmawheel.net/posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=63480

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=63480#p63480

http://dharmawheel.net/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1300







But perception is subject to impermanence like everything else, so how can it be reborn?

CP


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63942)by deepbluehum » Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:39 pm

deepbluehum wrote:

What is reborn each moment is deluded perception.

CP Gumby wrote:

I don't think it makes any sense to talk about the rebirth of a previousmoment, or moment‐to‐moment rebirth. It's true that this momentarises in dependence on the previous moment, but there is nothingbegin "reborn", it's just perpetual change and transient conditions.

CP

deepbluehum wrote:Impermanence and rebirth are one teaching. Everymoment is a little different than the previous. Thus,moments are discontinuous, each composed of distinctinterdependent conditions. Being distinct yetconventionally useful, each moment is the rebirth of theprevious, and stands in causal relationship to the previous.

CP Gumby wrote:

But perception is subject to impermanence like everything else, so how can itbe reborn?

deepbluehum wrote:

What is reborn each moment is deluded perception.

CP Gumby wrote:I don't think it makes any sense to talk about the rebirth ofa previous moment, or moment‐to‐moment rebirth. It'strue that this moment arises in dependence on theprevious moment, but there is nothing begin "reborn", it'sjust perpetual change and transient conditions.

CP







12‐links of DO.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63947)by edearl » Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:49 pm

Although the "relationship between sense data, emotions and consciousness" cannot beverified by hard science, in other words by a precise scientific experiment. There are "softscience" experiments in psychology and medicine that statistically quantify senses, such aspain. For example, a pinprick could be applied to several people in a specific location, andeach asked on a scale of 0‐10, how much pain do you feel; subsequently, statistics can beused to obtain a normal score and standard deviation. (See the link below for the descriptionof a scientific medical experiment that used a similar technique.)

CP

deepbluehum wrote:

I don't think so really. He is illustrating fluidity in world constructions.

You are blending a lot here. I'm not disagreeing with any of this part. I'm notadvocating solipsism. Rather, I am highlighting the fluidity of worldconstructions.

Again, science takes builds up a world by testing theoretical propositions withexperimental data observed by the senses and/or collected inferentially frominstrumentation. Whereas, dharma works with the relationship between sensedata, emotions and consciousness; these are just taken at face value to be "theworld."

Acchantika wrote:Wittgenstein's self‐refuting "philosophy as a language game" is meantnihilistically. Not in a soap‐bubble kind of way.

We still have to establish what contitutes a "valid vantage point" withlanguage, logic etc.

The relationship between thought, language and behaviour is somethingthe Buddha taught. You can’t be deep blue hum without bright red ah.

The “information innately present” is wide‐open to misidentification tothose who abandon proper method and reify beliefs based on faithwithout evidence. No amount of semantic gymnastics about relativeviewpoints will evade this observation. Conceptual attachment andconceptual abandonment are both extreme attitudes. “There are rules,Neo”.







Scientists have done a number of experiments on people meditating, and I believeexperiments can be done to determine some things about the "relationship between sensedata, emotions and consciousness". Experiments into the nature of consciousness have beenand are being done, but AFAIK they are either inconclusive or rather simple.

The dharma is a body of knowledge which many Buddhist agree upon as valid. Although,Buddhists try to follow the Right Way, they have not taken care to eliminate personal biasfrom the dharma. That is, goals of Buddhists such as eliminating suffering, becomingenlightened, or remembering prior lives may bias one's experience, which means the dharmais not accepted as scientific evidence. To make the dharma acceptable as evidence might bedone, if a number of Buddhist neophytes, who are ignorant of a specific Buddhist idea, weretaught to practice Buddhism, practice for a while, and finally report the results of theircontemplative meditation. If analysis of their reports found their contemplation led themfrom ignorance of an idea to an idea already documented in the dharma, then I believe thatidea would be more acceptable to the scientific community. Unfortunately, this experimentseems impractical, as finding someone to either supervise or participate is highly unlikely.

Perhaps someone smarter than I can design experiments that are practical. Bud, does anyonereally care? I do not.

http://www.wakehealth.edu/News‐Releases ... s_Pain.htm(http://www.wakehealth.edu/News‐Releases/2011/Demystifying_Meditation_%E2%80%93_Brain_Imaging_Illustrates_How_Meditation_Reduces_Pain.htm)

Metta



To really know about the experiences of meditators is not about doing an experiment by aWestern scientist to satisfy Westerns who are conditioned by that mode of inquiry. Rather,you should, with your Western experience and Western mind, take refuge in the ThreeJewels, and pursue the teachings with the mind to test. The experimental setting is theretreat room, the apparatus is your body, the experimenter is your subjective mind.Experiences that happen in a retreat with a teacher from a lineage truly defy all Westernscientific parameters. You simply have to put aside science and take a chance.



deepbluehum wrote:To really know about the experiences of meditators is not about doing anexperiment by a Western scientist to satisfy Westerns who are conditioned bythat mode of inquiry. Rather, you should, with your Western experience andWestern mind, take refuge in the Three Jewels, and pursue the teachings withthe mind to test. The experimental setting is the retreat room, the apparatus is

http://www.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2011/Demystifying_Meditation_%E2%80%93_Brain_Imaging_Illustrates_How_Meditation_Reduces_Pain.htm











It makes no sense to me to "put aside science" when HHDL says science should prevail overtraditional Buddhist beliefs.



That's not what he said. He said in some cases where science and buddhism conflict aboutfactual matters, science should prevail. For example, where Abhidharma describes atoms in amanner in conflict with science, then scientific explanation should prevail. However, wherescience says there is only matter and everything just dissolves into dust, HHDL does not sayscience should prevail. Rather he says, Buddhism should prevail where there is qualitativesubjective consciousness, and rebirth.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63999)by Dechen Norbu » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:30 pm

And science says no such thing. The metaphysical assumptions some scientists prefer to adoptand by which they steer their research point in that direction, but that's all.



your body, the experimenter is your subjective mind. Experiences that happenin a retreat with a teacher from a lineage truly defy all Western scientificparameters. You simply have to put aside science and take a chance.

edearl wrote:

It makes no sense to me to "put aside science" when HHDL says science shouldprevail over traditional Buddhist beliefs.

deepbluehum wrote:To really know about the experiences of meditators is not about doingan experiment by a Western scientist to satisfy Westerns who areconditioned by that mode of inquiry. Rather, you should, with yourWestern experience and Western mind, take refuge in the Three Jewels,and pursue the teachings with the mind to test. The experimentalsetting is the retreat room, the apparatus is your body, theexperimenter is your subjective mind. Experiences that happen in aretreat with a teacher from a lineage truly defy all Western scientificparameters. You simply have to put aside science and take a chance.















by deepbluehum » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:44 pm

That is true. Some scientists are true skeptics and do not make any assumptions about theworld of consciousness. But the prevailing view of those who speak for science is harddeterministic materialism.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64003)by Dechen Norbu » Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:02 pm

Yes, but that's because mostly those who speak about it (the self proclaimed skeptics andother vigilantes of the scientific turf) are quite a noisy bunch. Most scientists are uniformedabout philosophy, epistemology of science and the shortcomings of metaphysical naturalism.Or either care, for all that matters. Armchair academics are most likely prone to dwell inthese issues. Productive scientists usually are more concerned about getting the job donewithout many philosophic considerations. It's more a matter of how than of why, ofpragmatism than deep philosophic analysis. In terms of technology, medical science and soon, perhaps such a view is more eficient. From time to time, science and philosophy meetand some changes are made. The amplitude of those changes varies proportionally with thenumber of deceased scientists. As Planck put it: "A new scientific truth does not triumphby convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponentseventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." or in a shorterversion "Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out."



Dechen Norbu wrote:And science says no such thing. The metaphysical assumptions some scientistsprefer to adopt and by which they steer their research point in that direction,but that's all.

Dechen Norbu wrote:Yes, but that's because mostly those who speak about it (the self proclaimedskeptics and other vigilantes of the scientific turf) are quite a noisy bunch.Most scientists are uniformed about philosophy, epistemology of science andthe shortcomings of metaphysical naturalism. Or either care, for all thatmatters. Armchair academics are most likely prone to dwell in these issues.Productive scientists usually are more concerned about getting the job donewithout many philosophic considerations. It's more a matter of how than ofwhy, of pragmatism than deep philosophic analysis. In terms of technology,medical science and so on, perhaps such a view is more eficient. From time totime, science and philosophy meet and some changes are made. The amplitudeof those changes varies proportionally with the number of deceased scientists.

As Planck put it: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its













Yet the unconscious drive of a scientist feeds those who have such and such a view. Ascientist is not a king or a queen, but a bishop or a rook. Meaning the findings of science fuela social agenda based on a philosophical and philosophical/economic view. Those who adhereto a given agenda tend to maintain their own lineages of sorts. Even if one were to let loosethe fact finders, there would still have to be someone to decide what to do with it. So long asthat decision is based on a view, it is definitely a samsaric mind and will lead to suffering.There is no doubt about that. Once you really get into doing dharma, science is just a niceenvironmental condition, but by no means necessary. What is more useful is a peaceful placewith adequate food and cleanliness. With all that modern science has produced (within itssocial context), it has yet to produce these conditions for this world. All that has happened isone place has improved at the deprivation of another. I call to attention what is really thepoint here. Liberation from all this stuff, not the development of it. All we need to beliberated from this stuff is pretty small. Good doctors, surgeons, etc. are very helpful. Butthe enormity of medicines are often not. Basically science is a function of samsara.



True, science has not determined much about consciousness, if anything. A scientificdefinition for it probably does not exist. Each person understands it subjectively, and to someextent agree with others about its nature. Scientific knowledge of consciousness does not andprobably will not exist during my 0lifetime‐‐maybe never. Nonetheless, I do study thedharma. I find it interesting, but the foreign words and cultural‐content make it difficult. Iam not a quick study; it will take me a long time to thoroughly understand the dharma.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64012)


opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponentseventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." or in ashorter version "Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out."

deepbluehum wrote:

That is true. Some scientists are true skeptics and do not make any assumptionsabout the world of consciousness. But the prevailing view of those who speakfor science is hard deterministic materialism.

Dechen Norbu wrote:And science says no such thing. The metaphysical assumptions somescientists prefer to adopt and by which they steer their research point inthat direction, but that's all.












Look for the videos of the monk Punnaji. He's very down to earth and makes everything reallyeasy. Being a medical doctor in Western medicine he does a good job describing everything soanyone can get it.



edearl wrote:

True, science has not determined much about consciousness, if anything. Ascientific definition for it probably does not exist. Each person understands itsubjectively, and to some extent agree with others about its nature. Scientificknowledge of consciousness does not and probably will not exist during my0lifetime‐‐maybe never. Nonetheless, I do study the dharma. I find itinteresting, but the foreign words and cultural‐content make it difficult. I amnot a quick study; it will take me a long time to thoroughly understand thedharma.

deepbluehum wrote:

That is true. Some scientists are true skeptics and do not make anyassumptions about the world of consciousness. But the prevailing view ofthose who speak for science is hard deterministic materialism.

Dechen Norbu wrote:And science says no such thing. The metaphysicalassumptions some scientists prefer to adopt and by whichthey steer their research point in that direction, but that'sall.

deepbluehum wrote:

That's not what he said. He said in some cases where science and buddhismconflict about factual matters, science should prevail. For example, whereAbhidharma describes atoms in a manner in conflict with science, thenscientific explanation should prevail. However, where science says there is onlymatter and everything just dissolves into dust, HHDL does not say science shouldprevail. Rather he says, Buddhism should prevail where there is qualitativesubjective consciousness, and rebirth.

edearl wrote:It makes no sense to me to "put aside science" when HHDL says scienceshould prevail over traditional Buddhist beliefs.









I agree with you, and did not mean to imply otherwise. Often the people consider "scientifictheory" a proof, but I think not. Hypotheses and theories are often confused. Anyone maystate their hypothesis without any demonstration of its validity. Technically, when more thanone scientist has done experiments and observed the same results as others, a hypothesis isaccepted as theory. Nonetheless, I do not call theories "fact." Too many theories have laterbeen proven incorrect. For example, once scientific theory explained orbits of the planets ascircular, but later they were observed to be elliptical. And, Einstein refined ideas aboutphysics in a radical way.

Science doesn't say "everything just dissolves into dust." The current hypothesis, "stringtheory," has a consensus of many scientists, but not all. Scientists cannot yet observe stringsand may never. That math works pretty well to explain strings explains the consensus; thatno one can observe strings explains the disagreement. Scientists say strings are energy, notdust. But, "string theory" continues to change. I do not know the math, but some things thatstring theory predicts seems better suited to a medieval story about witches and dragons.

Energy dispersal is an observation that energy dissipates into larger and larger volumes of thecosmos, because the universe is expanding. The N‐dimensional asymptote of this processmeans everywhere in the cosmos will eventually have zero energy. If strings are merelyenergy and are the smallest constituents of matter, then eventually everywhere in thecosmos will be empty. Thus, science and the Buddhist idea that the cosmos is empty are tosome extent in agreement. However, this idea is my hypothesis and cannot be observed.

HHDL appears to be very wise, and seems to understand that science has nothing valid to sayabout very many things, including subjective consciousness and rebirth.

Metta



A string is a wave that may or may not move. So it's a shape too. In the Abhidharma action isdescribed as shape. There are many interesting parallels.

BUT, the *experience* of an *experience* is not subject to instrumental display, ever. And thisis where we have to go to practice dharma. All else is just subsidiary knowledge that helpspeople get over one of the most pernicious of the five hindrances: doubt.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64190)by Karma Yeshe Gyaltsen » Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

Trapped by concepts, beings wonder endlessly in Samsara.

There is no conceptual solution to the questions regarding rebirth and karma.

A philosophical response to this kind of question does not liberate.











One can, however consider the question " Am I completely aware in this moment?"


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64194)by deepbluehum » Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:20 am

That's not what Buddha said.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64201)by KevinSolway » Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:55 am

I believe this question is wrongly formed, since karma is not dependent on rebirth and so thetwo don't need to be associated.

Cause and effect (karma) works perfecly well without people being reborn as other peoplewhen they die, or reborn as other kinds of animals, or as hungry ghosts, etc.

So I would say that cause and effect is real, but that being reborn as another person whenyou die is not real.

In my view the term "birth", in the context of Buddhism, has nothing whatsoever to do withphysical birth. Rather, 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 isassociated with attachments. These things happen moment by moment.

I've made a video which outlines my disagreement with the popular view of rebirth, and Iwelcome responses from the people here. I do realize that not all Buddhists believe in theliteral interpretation, and that many Buddhists have no opinion on the matter at all.

Nonsense in Buddhism IIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jmx181ODtQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jmx181ODtQ)


Re: are karma and rebirth for real?

Karma Yeshe Gyaltsen wrote:There is no conceptual solution to the questions regarding rebirth and karma.

are karma and rebirth for real?









http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jmx181ODtQ





Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64204)by Sherab Dorje » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:14 am

That's one opinion, yes. You'll find that quite a few Buddhists hold this opinion. If youbothered reading this here viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678&start=20#p62550(http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678&start=20#p62550) you will find that theBuddha more or less said the same thing 2500 years ago.

Yes, this is one of the prevalent viewpoints amongst Buddhists regarding rebirth. You are notsaying anything new yet.

"Nonsense"? You come to a Buddhist forum and start propounding your view using the termnonsense? You expect people to take you seriously given your lack of tact and respect?

Anyway, I started watching your video and a number of points struck me. You started bysaying that knowing "self" one knows "others" and that knowing "others" one knows the "self".So please define your use of these terms. You see, in Buddhism, this thing we call self ismerely a construct based on a conglomeration of causes and conditions which is then held upin opposition to an apparent other. Is this what you mean by "self"?

Then you started on a rant about Buddhist names being a misrepresentation of the trulyexistent self they are apparently defining. Well this is BS my friend. We are given these highsounding names to remind ourselves of the underlying enlightened qualities we should bedeveloping and examining. They are an expression of what we can be (what we are, but havenot yet uncovered) and not necessarily an expression of our current mode of being.

After the first 98 seconds of the video I got bored of your misinformed ranting and turned itoff.

Better luck next time.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64208)by KevinSolway » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:41 am

KevinSolway wrote:I believe this question is wrongly formed, since karma is not dependent onrebirth and so the two don't need to be associated.

In my view the term "birth", in the context of Buddhism, has nothing whatsoeverto do with physical birth. Rather, it refers to the birth of the false "I", whichrepeatedly occurs in non‐Buddhas. Likewise "Ageing and death" refers to thenatural ending of happiness that is associated with attachments. These thingshappen moment by moment.

Nonsense in Buddhism II http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jmx181ODtQ(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jmx181ODtQ)



http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678&start=20#p62550





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jmx181ODtQ



by KevinSolway » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:41 am

There is a wealth of nonsense in what is known today as "Buddhism". It has superstition andarrogance coming out of its ears.

For example, "Spin that prayer wheel the wrong way and you will do harm." "If you don'tbelieve that you can be reborn as a fish when you die then you're not a Buddhist." "If you don'treceive initiations from a Master then you can't progress along the path." "Jesus was not abodhisattva ‐ he was a Christian."

Yes.

Yes, I realize that, and you're welcome to do it if you want to. However, I do not approve. Infact, I strongly disapprove. I trust you are comfortable with this.

That would be a good way to close if you had demonstrated that anything I said wasmisinformed.

TopPreviousNext Display posts from previous: All posts Sort by Post time Ascending GoPost a reply773 posts • of 39 • 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 39

gregkavarnos wrote:

You come to a Buddhist forum and start propounding your view using the termnonsense? You expect people to take you seriously given your lack of tact andrespect?

KevinSolway wrote:Nonsense"?

this thing we call self is merely a construct based on a conglomeration of causesand conditions which is then held up in opposition to an apparent other. Is thiswhat you mean by "self"?

They are an expression of what we can be (what we are, but have not yetuncovered) and not necessarily an expression of our current mode of being.

misinformed ranting





http://dharmawheel.net/posting.php?mode=reply&f=66&t=5678

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678










Return to Open DharmaJump to: Open Dharma Go

Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: Lazy_eye, websat11 and 1 guest©2015 David N. Snyder, Ph.D., Vipassana Foundation in association with The Dhamma Encyclopedia

Dharma Wheel is associated with DhammaWheel.com, DhammaWiki.com, and TheDhamma.com..

Chat room>

http://dharmawheel.net/viewforum.php?f=66

http://dharmawheel.net/viewonline.php



http://www.thedhamma.com/

http://www.dhammawiki.com/

http://www.dhammawheel.com/

http://dhammawiki.com/

http://thedhamma.com/

http://dharmawheel.net/chat/index.php

g

Documents

Transcript of g