s

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

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678&start=280 1/16

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

Are Karma and Rebirth Real?Forum rulesPost a replySearch this topic… Search773 posts • 5 of 39 • 1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 39Report this post (./report.php?f=66&p=64307)Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=64307)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64307)by KevinSolway » Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:36 am

And you know this how? Because you read it in a book?

There cannot be a conversation if you're just going to repeat your interpretation of what youread in books.

So long as consciousness exists then it can experience all manner of thoughts, includingsuffering, happiness, and change, so there's no reason it can't progress towards Buddhahood.I'm not interested in what you believe you've read in books. I'm only interested in reasons.

TopReport this post (./report.php?f=66&p=64309)Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=64309)


I'm debunking nonsense using reason. I'm not using scientific methodology.

It is Buddhists, such as the monk in my video, and yourself, who attempt to use science tosupport their mistaken beliefs.

deepbluehum wrote:In the Arupa jhanas there is no body at all.

Without the five skandhas one cannot see the 12‐links. Therefore, a body isnecessary.

deepbluehum wrote:If you are merely interested in debunking dharma based on the scientificmethodology

http://dharmawheel.net/search.php

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678&start=280

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=64307

http://dharmawheel.net/posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=64307

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=64307#p64307

http://dharmawheel.net/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1526







However, when Buddhists do attempt to use science to support their beliefs, they tend not tohave any understanding of the science.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64310)by Sherab Dorje » Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:51 am

And by a slight strech of logic, anybody that disagrees with you is a non‐Buddhist. Great! Yetanother white guy with delusions of grandeur!

Define reality. I asked you twice to do this but you have ignored me. If you are going to throwaround terms we gotta reach some sort of consensus on their meaning or else the discussionis pointless.

Well I'm going to take the Buddhas definition on what the Buddhist interpretation of birth is

and the Buddhas defintion on what the Buddhist defintion of ageing and death is

KevinSolway wrote:

That's correct. And anyone who considers me a Buddhist wouldn't be considereda Buddhist.

gregkavarnos wrote:Do you consider yourself a true Buddhist that is regarded as a non‐Buddhist?

I can't agree with that. There's only one reality. If every person has their ownreality then there's no point helping people to overcome their delusions.

As you know, I have the following interpretation of rebirth.

"Birth" in Buddhism has nothing at all to do with physical birth. "Birth" refers tothe birth of the false "I", which repeatedly arises in non‐Buddhas. Likewise"Ageing and death" has nothing to do with physical ageing and death, but itrefers to the ending of the happiness that is associated with attachments.

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming‐to‐be, coming‐forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the variousbeings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness,graying, wrinkling, decline of life‐force, weakening of the faculties of thevarious beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whateverdeceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completionof time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the







http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html)

To quote your words "I don't approve of people associating helpful words with unhelpfulactivities." Or in this case, unhelpful defintions.

So you have received initiations and personally experienced that they are mistaken andunecessary? I asked you this question again and you did not answer. You have a nasty habit ofnot replying to questions which reveal the flaws in your arguments.

How do you know you are wise? You don't come across as wise, just opinionated.



You would have delusions of grandeur if you believe you are able to make such diagnoses.

life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is calleddeath.

So while it is still called "rebirth" it is entirely different to what is commonlybelieved and taught by Buddhist teachers, such as the Dalai Lama, et al.

That which is popularly called "rebirth" is in fact not rebirth at all, but is just afantasy.

The reason I put those words in quotation marks is that they are not my words.I'm simply relaying what I have heard from many Buddhist teachers andpractitioners. These teachers sincerely believe that you must go through certainformal initiations, with a physical, human teacher, in order to progress alongthe path. I have explained to them why they are mistaken, politely giving clearand detailed reasons, but they are adamant.

The same way any wise person knows they are not delusional.

gregkavarnos wrote:Yet another white guy with delusions of grandeur!

Define reality

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html







"Define reality" is an impossible task if I am aware of reality and you aren't.

I have already explained that there's only one reality, so that should give you a big clue.Reality is the fact that things lack inherent existence, and that consciousness is notindependent of the physical world ‐ in contrast to what many Buddhists believe.

I suggest that you keep in mind that you don't know what the Buddha's definition was. All youhave is your interpretation. Or are you claiming that you directly know the Buddha's mind?

And as an aside, your interpretation is an interpretation of a translation of words written bymonks in a language the Buddha never spoke, compiled long after he died, and which themonks probably had no understanding of.

Those words are perfectly consistent with my explanation of the meaning of "birth" inBuddhism, and in the 12 links.

Likewise with the words concerning death. You need to understand that "body" doesn't haveanything to do with the physical body, and "beings" doesn't have anything to do with physicalbeings. Buddhism is not so concerned with physical things, but with the mental life. TheBuddha was a philosopher and not a scientist.

We have many beings within us.

For example, in an experiment with split‐brain patients, where the two hemispheres of thebrain have been severed, they asked the patient's left hemisphere whether he believed inGod, and he did. But when they asked his other hemisphere whether he believed in God, hewas an atheist!

We have countless such minds within us. And during a single day we experience countlessdifferent realms of existence.

Well I'm going to take the Buddhas definition

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming‐to‐be,coming‐forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] mediaof the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

So you have received initiations and personally experienced that they aremistaken and unecessary? I asked you this question again and you did notanswer.



I didn't answer because I consider your question to be extremely foolish.

Let me answer your question with another question: Do you have to commit a particularcrime in order to find out whether you should do so?

Obviously I believe I am wise because I believe I know all the essentials that a person shouldknow ‐ and in great depth.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64318)by edearl » Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:58 am

"It is now considered by the medical profession and supported by legal and some ethicalconsensus that if a person's entire brain is dead, the person is dead. The reason is that if theentire brain is destroyed, there is absence of spontaneous breathing and expected cessationof heartbeat soon. It is on the basis of this concept that all life support treatments which the

How do you know you are wise?

deepbluehum wrote:I don't pretend to understand the situation, all I can say is what is described.Here's an example:

I saw this on a National Geo thing called "Moment of Death," or something likethat. The story went as follows.

Heart surgeons had stopped this guy's heart to do a heart transplant, and hehad no brain activity and no heart. The surgeon had a habit of putting his wristson his hips and pointing at with his elbows as he gave orders; this was done tokeep his hands free from contamination.

When the guy woke up after surgery he told the docs and nurses he saw thesurgeon from an overhead angle moving his elbows back and forth like a chickenbarking orders at the nurses. The doc and staff were astonished because theonly time he could have witnessed this was when he was clinically dead.

So either the criteria for clinical death is wrong or one can have experience ofsight and memory when one is dead.

My feeling is stuff like this can be taken at face value. I would agree that thisexperience this guy had was somehow dependent on the existence of his body.But we don't come close to understanding how. Buddha explained there are 31planes of existence. I take that at face value too.







patient may have had in place before brain death has been established can be removedbecause the patient is now dead. " See: http://www‐hsc.usc.edu/~mbernste/ethics.braindeath.html (http://www‐hsc.usc.edu/~mbernste/ethics.braindeath.html)

National geographic is not always a good source of information, for example one of its showsis The Truth Behind: The Loch Ness Monster.

Last edited by edearl (./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1428) on Sat Nov 05,2011 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.TopReport this post (./report.php?f=66&p=64319)Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=64319)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64319)by edearl » Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:13 am

Nonetheless, the very best evidence of anything can only be obtained by the scientificprocess. The scientific method is not a problem, it is the most reliable process for examiningthe cosmos. That a good scientist should always be skeptical about accepted theories is partof that process, and that skepticism assures that scientific knowledge is as good as it can be.No other mode of rational thought, especially one that does not encourage skepticism, canever produce a body of knowledge that is more accurate, except pure mathematics and logicwherein proofs do exist.

Last edited by edearl (./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1428) on Sat Nov 05,2011 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.TopReport this post (./report.php?f=66&p=64326)Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=64326)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64326)by LastLegend » Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:11 am

If you are empty, why does having a body bother you?


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64328)by catmoon » Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:31 am

Note: Whether or not a person has delusions of grandeur has no bearing on the veracity oftheir arguments. It also constitutes an ad hom argument as used above. No hitting below thebelt.

TopReport this post (./report.php?f=66&p=64330)

Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=64330)

deepbluehum wrote:If you are merely interested in debunking dharma based on the scientificmethodology then you can easily do that, but the problem is the scientificmethodology. It never renders any proof of anything, as you may well know.

http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~mbernste/ethics.braindeath.html



















Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=64330)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64330)by muni » Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:03 am

While of course in maturing we avoid or reject in greedy pleasing our concepts, avoid

hardship of teaching....not so good, really not so good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOSZLgzgnBs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOSZLgzgnBs)



Oh... So only you are aware of reality then. Good on yah Dave!

Thank you for (finally) defining your view of reality. You are quite right, many Buddhists donot adhere to your purely materialistic opinion. That does not make your view right and bythe same token it does not make their view wrong. You see, you went to town ondeepbluehum who gave a personal experiential (albeit subjective) view on the experiencesfound in the 31 planes of existence, accusing him of espousing theories based merely on whathe has read. So now I ask you: where does your view of reality come from? Omnscience?Information gained through study? Personal experience? What makes your view more validthan deepbluehum (for example)?

catmoon wrote:Note: Whether or not a person has delusions of grandeur has no bearing on theveracity of their arguments. It also constitutes an ad hom argument as usedabove. No hitting below the belt.

KevinSolway wrote:"Define reality" is an impossible task if I am aware of reality and you aren't.

I have already explained that there's only one reality, so that should give you abig clue. Reality is the fact that things lack inherent existence, and thatconsciousness is not independent of the physical world ‐ in contrast to whatmany Buddhists believe.

I suggest that you keep in mind that you don't know what the Buddha's definitionwas. All you have is your interpretation. Or are you claiming that you directlyknow the Buddha's mind?

And as an aside, your interpretation is an interpretation of a translation ofwords written by monks in a language the Buddha never spoke, compiled longafter he died, and which the monks probably had no understanding of.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOSZLgzgnBs







Well, gee, thanks for pointing out my nose to me Dave. Oh, how could I possibly forget, onlyyou have an understanding of what the Buddha said. Only you have a monopoly on (correctly)interpreting the Buddhas words. Only you have a monopoly on knowing the Buddhas mind.

For your informantion Dave (many Buddhists believe that) all of us have the capacity ofknowing the Buddhas mind (including you), since all of us are manifestations of theDharmakaya. All of us carry within our (current) mind/body accumulation theTathagatagarbha.

You have to commit the crime in order to experience the crime. You may understand theexperience through intellectual consideration, but that does not mean that you haveexperienced it. Can you truly know the experience of tiredness if you have never been tired?NO! Initiations are an experiential and not an intellectual activity. If you have notexperienced them (and even if you have experienced them) you cannot understand theirsignificance. That is why the question is not foolish and that is why you did not respond to it.

Knowledge is not the sole basis of wisdom. What of the role of experience in wisdom? If I don'tknow about the details of quantam physics does that mean I am not (cannot be) wise? Youmay claim to be knowledable, but your unwillingness to accept the veracity of theexperiences and knowledge of others betrays the fact that you are not wise.



Of course it does CM. If somebody believes that only they are correct and that all others areworthless it tends to influence the veracity of their arguments. If Dave believes that only he(and anybody that agrees with him) is a Buddhist, and that only he has the correct view ofreality, and that only his knowledge and experience is of any value, etc... Then it DEFINITELYwill have a bearing on the veracity of his arguments.

This is true. Sorry.

I didn't answer because I consider your question to be extremely foolish.

Let me answer your question with another question: Do you have to commit aparticular crime in order to find out whether you should do so?

Obviously I believe I am wise because I believe I know all the essentials that aperson should know ‐ and in great depth.

catmoon wrote:Note: Whether or not a person has delusions of grandeur has no bearing on theveracity of their arguments.

It also constitutes an ad hom argument as used above.







Last edited by Sherab Dorje (./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=390) on Sat Nov05, 2011 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.TopReport this post (./report.php?f=66&p=64335)Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=64335)


First of all, I don't know who Dave is, and secondly, if you think that I am the only one who isaware of reality then you are a very foolish person.

I have no idea what you mean by "purely materialist". This is an assumption on your part.

What I say, and what I argue, is that mind is not independent of the physical world.

I don't believe deepbluehum knows, from either reason or personal experience, how manyplanes of existence there are, or whether the physical human body is the ideal body to attainBuddhahood. I believe he is merely repeating what he has read, and I said so.

My view comes from reason and experience, and that's what makes my view more valid thanan ungrounded personal interpretation of words in a book.

gregkavarnos wrote:Oh... So only you are aware of reality then. Good on yah Dave!

many Buddhists do not adhere to your purely materialistic opinion.

you went to town on deepbluehum who gave a personal experiential (albeitsubjective) view on the experiences found in the 31 planes of existence,accusing him of espousing theories based merely on what he has read.

So now I ask you: where does your view of reality come from?

Only you have an understanding of what the Buddha said.








I don't know what you've been learning from your teachers, but if they've been telling you thisthen they are completely wrong.

We can only guess at what the Buddha said, and then we can only interpret what we think isthe meaning of what we think he said.

You have an extremely warped way of looking at the world. I don't know where you picked upthe habit, but it's not a good one to have.

I know a number of people who interpret the Buddhist teachings in a similar way to myself. Iam not the only one.

But it shouldn't matter how many people believe something. Don't your teachers teach youthat you shouldn't appeal to logical fallacies, such as ad hominem, or straw‐man, or adpopulum? They should be teaching you these things.

Crime is an experiential and not an intellectual activity.

So do you have to commit a crime in order to know that you shouldn't do so?

According to your argument, you cannot understand the significance of a crime until youcommit the crime.



Here you are apologizing for something you just claimed was totally justified.

That's like a bank robber saying that he was totally justified in robbing a bank, but then tries

Only you have a monopoly on (correctly) interpreting the Buddhas words.

Initiations are an experiential and not an intellectual activity.

gregkavarnos wrote:









to avoid going to jail by saying "sorry".

Even in the case that a person claims that they are the only person who is right, and thateveryone else is wrong, that is definitely not an argument that the person is wrong. I thinkyou simply fail to understand the logic of the issue.



Sorry, Kev!

I was referring to this statement of yours:

Seeing how we are having a dialogue if one of the two of us (you) is aware of reality and oneof the two of us (me) is not, then only you are aware of reality.

That is what I mean by purely materialist. Actually some traditions claim that consciousnessis composed of one of the mahabhuta, namely air. So there is some support in some schoolsfor your position.

You are assuming that everybody elses view is based on ungrounded interpretation of words, Ithink you will find that deepbluehum verified his knowledge through his experience. That hetoo used reason and experience to come to his conclusion. Like I said, you do not have amonopoly on reason and experience.

I agree, but I am not condemning the veracity of your interpretation by saying that you arenot a Buddhist, that is something you are doing.

KevinSolway wrote:First of all, I don't know who Dave is, and secondly, if you think that I am theonly one who is aware of reality then you are a very foolish person.

"Define reality" is an impossible task if I am aware of reality andyou aren't.

...What I say, and what I argue, is that mind is not independent of the physicalworld.

My view comes from reason and experience, and that's what makes my viewmore valid than an ungrounded personal interpretation of words in a book.

...We can only guess at what the Buddha said, and then we can only interpretwhat we think is the meaning of what we think he said.







I can understand that, but that does not make other interpretations that coincide with thethree seals and other Buddhist "philosophical prerequisites" non‐Buddhist. That is yourjudgement.

Well it's both actually, so maybe my example was not so perfect.

That is not what I said. I said that you cannot experience a crime without commiting a crime.Anyway, taking part in an initiation ceremony is not the same as breaking and entering. Youcan go ahead and experience an initiation without having to deal with going to jail. That'swhat I recommend, experience an initiation and then judge from your experience if it is validFOR YOU or not. What the hell, I am sure you have spent many hours of your life engaging ininfinitely more pointless activity (I know I have). I can vouch from my experience andreasoning that it is not an insignificant and useless activity. I am sure there are many morepeople that will agree with me and just as many that won't. I won't go into analysis of who isright and wrong, and who is or is not a Buddhist 'cause I am not yet deluded enough to believethat I can judge this.



No, I am apologising for using it as an ad hom, it doesn't mean that I am apologising for my"diagnosis".

I never said that what you are stating is wrong, I said that it is severely deluded and arrogantto believe that only you, and everybody that agrees with you, are right and everybody else iswrong.

...I know a number of people who interpret the Buddhist teachings in a similarway to myself. I am not the only one.

Crime is an experiential and not an intellectual activity.

...According to your argument, you cannot understand the significance of acrime until you commit the crime.

KevinSolway wrote:Here you are apologizing for something you just claimed was totally justified.

Even in the case that a person claims that they are the only person who is right,and that everyone else is wrong, that is definitely not an argument that theperson is wrong. I think you simply fail to understand the logic of the issue.








Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64339)by catmoon » Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:43 am

LOL I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this! Nonetheless, let us suppose, for the sake ofargument, that someone does in fact have all the delusional beliefs you list above. Now, if hetells you a bus is coming and don't step off the curb, the veracity of the statement is solelyconditional on whether or not there is, in fact, a bus coming. If a person is severelydelusional, that may affect one's estimate of the probability of him speaking truth, it maymake one highly suspicious of anything he says, but that is no basis for rational argument. Inrational argument, a statement can only be disproved by demonstrating it is not in accordwith reality.

In formal debate one often hears the debaters referring to each other as "My esteemedopponent" or "My esteemed colleague". I think this is done partially because it remindsdebaters that merely by entering into a debate, they are granting that the opponent isworthy, or at least reasonably sane. This strikes me as good debating technique, goodmanners and good Buddhism too.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64340)by KevinSolway » Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:14 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:

Of course it does CM. If somebody believes that only they are correct and thatall others are worthless it tends to influence the veracity of their arguments. IfDave believes that only he (and anybody that agrees with him) is a Buddhist,and that only he has the correct view of reality, and that only his knowledgeand experience is of any value, etc... Then it DEFINITELY will have a bearing onthe veracity of his arguments.


catmoon wrote:Note: Whether or not a person has delusions of grandeur has no bearingon the veracity of their arguments.


gregkavarnos wrote:Seeing how we are having a dialogue if one of the two of us (you) is aware ofreality and one of the two of us (me) is not, then only you are aware of reality.











If I'm aware of reality, and you aren't, then that's just the way it is. It doesn't logically followfrom this fact that I'm wrong.

Well I don't consider myself to be a materialist, and the number of schools that support myposition is irrelevant.

That's not true, since I wouldn't make that assumption about people who think along thesame lines that I do.

Well I don't find that. If he claims to have verified it by his own knowledge, then I don'tbelieve him. I might believe him if he explained his reasoning as to why there is a certainexact number of plains of existence, or the reasons why the physical human body is the bestbody, as opposed to any other body in the Universe, in the countless trillions of galaxies.

If it is the case that I'm aware of reality and you are not, it doesn't logically follow that I havea monopoly on it. Your logic is flawed.

So there is some support in some schools for your position.

You are assuming that everybody elses view is based on ungroundedinterpretation of words

I think you will find that deepbluehum verified his knowledge through hisexperience.

That he too used reason and experience to come to his conclusion. Like I said,you do not have a monopoly on reason and experience.

I am not condemning the veracity of your interpretation by saying that you arenot a Buddhist, that is something you are doing.



I have not said that anyone is not a Buddhist.

As it happens, while all beings have some potential for wisdom, I don't consider that all beingsare Buddhists. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

In my opinion the failure to understand the nature of the self and consciousness in those whobelieve in the literal interpretation of rebirth, indicates a major failure to understand thevery essence of Buddhist philosophy. While this fact alone doesn't mean these people are notBuddhists of a sort, it does mean that they are far from being a shining example of Buddhism‐ especially when they promote their unnecessary speculations (e.g., that a person can bereborn as an actual rabbit) as Buddhist doctrine. It makes Buddhism into a joke.

That's just your personal opinion. In my opinion it is not a desirable activity.

It is a delusion if you think that no‐one can judge such matters.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64341)by KevinSolway » Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:22 pm

If I claim that A=A, and you claim that A=not A, then I am fully justified to claim that I amright and you are wrong.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64342)by Sherab Dorje » Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:34 pm

Anyway, taking part in an initiation ceremony is not the same as breaking andentering.

I won't go into analysis of who is right and wrong, and who is or is not aBuddhist 'cause I am not yet deluded enough to believe that I can judge this.

gregkavarnos wrote:I said that it is severely deluded and arrogant to believe that only you, andeverybody that agrees with you, are right and everybody else is wrong.

catmoon wrote:











Can we agree that Kevs' claims to omniscience and omnipotence are not in accord withreality and then work from there? Would that be rational? Would it also be rational to assumethat Kev is not the only Buddhist in this thread?

Like I said, sorry for the ad hom, it was out of line. But at the same time (of course there isalways a butt), and I am not saying that this applies to Kev, but if somebody were stark ravingmad I would be a little stupid to not to take their words with a grain of salt. By the sametoken if Kev says to me that he knows reality and I don't, well... It doesn't leave muchroom for polite debate.


Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64343)by Sherab Dorje » Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:36 pm

The clown exits the circus ring leaving the dancing poodle in the tutu to continue the showalone.

Last edited by Sherab Dorje (./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=390) on Sat Nov05, 2011 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.TopPreviousNext Display posts from previous: All posts Sort by Post time Ascending GoPost a reply773 posts • Page 15 of 39 • 1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 39Return 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>

...In rational argument, a statement can only be disproved by demonstrating itis not in accord with reality.








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

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








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

s

Documents

Transcript of s