GENIUS FORUMS

tharpa,
I'm getting bogged down here.

What, specifically, is transmitted during reincarnation? What are the sufficient conditions of bodily reincarnation? Would the "superphysical" (I use this new term loosely, since I use physical in a broader sense than you) transmission of a single memory be reincarnation?

tharpa wrote:Next: 'if a reasonable amount, then personality.. would be constant'. No, logically there is no reason for that conclusion at all.

You said that the identity or personality of the person was not transferred from one body to another. That is, "Kevin" would become "Mary". This means that most of the memories of consciousness had not been transferred, otherwise "Kevin" would still be "Kevin".

In the case where a person loses their identity/personality, there is in fact no effective transferrence of consciousness, since memory is the essential element of consciousness. If you don't think memory is of primary importance to consciousness, then you haven't thought sufficiently about what consciousness is.

When a person forgets who they are, we say they have lost their mind, and for good reason.

That was an example, not a main point. An example of a certain form of what might be called (quasi) direct incarnation but which, as I immediately went on to point out, is not direct at all because of course the Person A quotient (clearly not complete without Person A's body) goes into Body B, and therefore a new life/person results. I was not really trying to promote this as a proof of anything, merely an example of a view and also an example that illustrates that even when 'direct' 'ejection' etc. is hypothesised, clearly the result is that the new birth is not the same as the old. So it is more a logical point than anything else.

I'm glad you said "hypothesized" because there is no evidence that it happens.

Also, I maintain than when something as basic as the identity/personality is not transferred, then so many memories are being lost in the process of transferrence that it cannot honestly be called a transferrence of consciousness at all.

I seek only to 'evade' your insistence that there is no commonality between literal animal and literal human existence, or that one cannot gradually morph into the other. I don't evade in any case, I have 'consistently' disagreed and moreover poited out that there is no fundamental difference between the two views.

If it were possible to have one's consciousness transferred into, say, a cow, or a person, at the end of one's life, into a fresh corpse, then it would be an ordinary process of cause and effect, and which the language of reincarnation describes, along with all other processes of cause and effect.

But there is no evidence that such a thing is possible.

If the Tibetans think they have evidence for this kind of reincarnation, they why don't they present it to science? Are they against science? Are they anti-knowledge?

Or is it perhaps something they don't wish to have examined, because it isn't true?

. . . refusing to discuss reincarnation in the context of how new beings come into existence

No, I've been talking about this all along. When you have one candle flame and with it you light another one, how does the new candle flame come into existence? There's no puzzle is there? It's exactly the same with everything.

That's why the Tibetan Buddhists are wrong to focus on sentient beings, as though sentient beings reincarnate and other things don't.

what is the nature of a being at all.

A being is something that has being. That is, it exists.

All such things are caused and have effects.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:tharpa,
I'm getting bogged down here.

What, specifically, is transmitted during reincarnation? What are the sufficient conditions of bodily reincarnation? Would the "superphysical" (I use this new term loosely, since I use physical in a broader sense than you) transmission of a single memory be reincarnation?

Essentially, as I see it (not being a fully trained scholar and rusty to boot!), the answer to your question lies in the here and now in the sense that whatever is transmitted is essentially similar to what is transmitted from moment to moment.

Okay, so that means 'karma', which functionally speaking in this existential (versus purely logical) context means that some sort of something from the 'previous moment' continues into the next moment. One way of putting this is to say that there is continuous change in the matrix of interdependent causes and conditions.

It seems like a big leap to contemplate what is transferred from the birth of being A to being B. But perhaps this is far too clunky a way of viewing the dynamic. Rather, let us take the moment of birth (could be death, could be conception, could be right now of course, i.e. any moment). But the moment of birth is when the baby pops out and takes first breath and voila! A new 'Trevor' or whatever. This happened to you and to me and to Kevin and to Mary. We are all sentient beings who were 'born' at some moment in time.

Again, there is an infinite matrix of causes and conditions. To analyse them to the end is basically impossible. One can say that they are all interdependent causes and conditions and this is the ultimate explanation of everything. Fine, but that is somewhat intellectual viz. the presence, power and experiential vibrancy of actual being.

So we need to look at actual being from moment to moment, in which the continuity of rebirth is playing out. We don't have to hypothesise about conception and actual birth which are now not even memories but theoretical. How about every day, every moment, or even how we reconstruct every day on the moment of waking up after being asleep? Every moment is both a new birth and a continuation from the previous moment/state.

So the real isssue is: what is it that continues if anything? Is there anything that continues at all? Is being actual, solid real as it seems to us as humans or is it more or less than that?

When we discuss reincarnation from one birth to another, or one moment to another, the assumption is that there is some 'something' that continues from previous to after. This might be likened to the notion of a 'karmatron'.

Actually, no such karmatron exists, just as no graviton exists. The continuity is indeed a manifestation of ongoing interdepencies of all sorts.

So this whole thing is both very real and also not real at all at the same time. The truth of impermanence is the underlying ground of continuity. Or as my teacher put it once in terms of the Three Marks (referenced earlier as the Four Marks):

Suffering is energy;
Impermanence is the consort you dance with;
Egolessness gives you the strength to be.
He didn't comment on the last one (peace/nirvana that is beyond space/time/power but he might have said something like:
insubstantiality is reality.)

And remember: thinking about all this too hard in the sense of coming up with a definite conclusion and definition can promote insanity! Dualistic mind cannot conceive of non-duality although it can sense the presence, hear the echo, smell its perfume. Somewhat.

tharpa wrote:identity is an illusory construct

Identity is not illusory. It is a real construction of consciousness.

Perhaps we are interchaging the terms 'consciousness' and 'self'? It does seem fair to say that without a sense of memory there can be no sense of self. But that is not at all the same as saying that without memory there can be no consciousness or that consciousness is not possible without its possessing memory.

During moments of sudden shock such as sneezing, a car crash, orgasm and so on, there is intense consciousness: but often a marked absence of memory, even sense of self.

The only reason you can identify "intense consciousness" is through memory. For example, you are aware that it is more intense than normal.

Kevin Solway wrote:

tharpa wrote:Next: 'if a reasonable amount, then personality.. would be constant'. No, logically there is no reason for that conclusion at all.

You said that the identity or personality of the person was not transferred from one body to another. That is, "Kevin" would become "Mary". This means that most of the memories of consciousness had not been transferred, otherwise "Kevin" would still be "Kevin".

First, obviously I enjoy this thread and continue and since it is 'yours' Kevin and this is your preferred mode - i.e. the bullet-points - I continue with them, although as I have expressed, I find them unsatisfactory in many ways. Still, they are workable as well, although they tend to limit easy flow of conversation and promote more argument for its own sake.

The points above: you have switched from one part of the conversation to another.. but that said: first of all, I am not necessarily 'buying' that Kevin is reborn as Mary altogether, however I have no problem that it is mainly Kevin in this example Mary. Well, that is a) parenthetical and b) somewhat confusing. Put it this way: the sense of self involves many factors, including memory over 'time' etc., and also the particular type of body you have as a human being called Kevin, with sense perceptions, location, culture, experiences and so forth. Much of this self is dependent upon the body you have in other words. Okay. Also there is the interdependent matrix ongoing in that even though no element therein has inherent independent existence, together they make a dynamic that somehow 'continues' from one moment into the next. You seem to be inferring that the self or consciousness (which seem to be interchangeable terms in you vocabulary) possess some sort of over-arching permanent umbrella-type function and that it would be this type of permanent consciousness principle that might 'reincarnate' in a new being. Or you are inferring that this is the assumption in the doctrine of reincarnation and are objecting to it as overly simplistic. But you can't have it both ways: you can't both posit consciousness/self/personality as something real/solid and also say it is like everything else interdependent and not able to reincarnate without also explaining how it is that a Kevin/human or cow/Mary can come into being with the karmic potential to experience self as a human or cow. (This wasn't said as clearly as I would like.)

Kevin Solway wrote: In the case where a person loses their identity/personality, there is in fact no effective transferrence of consciousness, since memory is the essential element of consciousness. If you don't think memory is of primary importance to consciousness, then you haven't thought sufficiently about what consciousness is.

I am sorry, but I reject this way you have of debating a topic by saying: 'if you don't agree with my premise it is because you are a fool.' You might be right, but your point remains an unsubstantiated assertion backed up by, essentially, an insult. Usually a sign of a very weak point.

Kevin Solway wrote: When a person forgets who they are, we say they have lost their mind, and for good reason.

This is because mind is confused with the notion of self.

Kevin Solway wrote:

That was an example, not a main point. An example of a certain form of what might be called (quasi) direct incarnation but which, as I immediately went on to point out, is not direct at all because of course the Person A quotient (clearly not complete without Person A's body) goes into Body B, and therefore a new life/person results. I was not really trying to promote this as a proof of anything, merely an example of a view and also an example that illustrates that even when 'direct' 'ejection' etc. is hypothesised, clearly the result is that the new birth is not the same as the old. So it is more a logical point than anything else.

I'm glad you said "hypothesized" because there is no evidence that it happens.

How do you know? Have you seen all evidence? The point is that it was mainly a logical point, as are most of them made here. You didn't produce one shred of evidence, for example, that the brain is the seat of mind, just citing vague mutterings like 'all people who have studied this agree' etc. That is the logic of sheep philosophy, basically.

Kevin Solway wrote: Also, I maintain than when something as basic as the identity/personality is not transferred, then so many memories are being lost in the process of transferrence that it cannot honestly be called a transferrence of consciousness at all.

Reasonable point, but so many variables in each term as to beg the question: what's the issue anyway?

Kevin Solway wrote:

I seek only to 'evade' your insistence that there is no commonality between literal animal and literal human existence, or that one cannot gradually morph into the other. I don't evade in any case, I have 'consistently' disagreed and moreover pointed out that there is no fundamental difference between the two views.

If it were possible to have one's consciousness transferred into, say, a cow, or a person, at the end of one's life, into a fresh corpse, then it would be an ordinary process of cause and effect, and which the language of reincarnation describes, along with all other processes of cause and effect.

But there is no evidence that such a thing is possible.

If the Tibetans think they have evidence for this kind of reincarnation, they why don't they present it to science? Are they against science? Are they anti-knowledge?

Or is it perhaps something they don't wish to have examined, because it isn't true?

Again, I wish I hadn't brought this in if it is to be queried this way. Such things come from the arcane past and I used them as an example of a certain type of view, also to illustrate a point about how full rebirth is not possible since even if the ENTIRETY of the consciousness of Being A goes into Being B, because the body is different, the consciousness and thus person would also be different. That was the point. Unless you assume that mind/person/consciousness is truly different from body. Which both you and I and nearly everybody here - in different ways and not always in agreement 'tis true - seems to go along with. That is the point: the notion of literal reincarnation simply DOES NOT EXIST in the buddhist tradition anywhere. It is contrary to the basic teachings of all schools. However, a more subtle notion of reincarnation, similar to the continuity of each being from moment to moment, is a topic worthy of consideration. And also effects how it might be possible for beings to be creating different realms and different bodies therein even if there are no real being as such in any of them.

Kevin Solway wrote:

. . . refusing to discuss reincarnation in the context of how new beings come into existence

No, I've been talking about this all along. When you have one candle flame and with it you light another one, how does the new candle flame come into existence? There's no puzzle is there? It's exactly the same with everything.

And as I continue to say, I do not see how this simple analogy covers the whole gamut at all. The new candle works fine for moment to moment continuity as well. Also, there is a difference between a flame and a being, just as there is a difference between a sentient being and an inanimate one, hence the very term 'sentient being' or 'living organism'.

Kevin Solway wrote: That's why the Tibetan Buddhists are wrong to focus on sentient beings, as though sentient beings reincarnate and other things don't.

OK, I take it back about the flame versus sentient being business. As analogous processes it's fine. Now: how do you define/describe the process whereby one flame becomes two? Is there continuity between flame 1 and flame 2 and if so what is the mechanism nature of that continuity? And then: expand on the various types of causes and conditions that create a human and a cow birth, assuming there is some sort of concatenation of causes and conditions that give rise to the birth of a cow or a human (and they are somewhat different from those that give rise to the birth of a flame or rock).

Kevin Solway wrote:

what is the nature of a being at all.

A being is something that has being. That is, it exists.

Well, that is far too simple. Unless you are maintaining that pebbles have consciousness that is exactly the same as a human's, and that everything is the same as everything else. Usually the word 'being' in this context refers to a 'living being'. If it doesn't, let us agree on that. Or if you reject the notion of a sentient being being different from an asteroid, then please explain so it is clearly established for further discussion.

Kevin Solway wrote: All such things are caused and have effects.

[/quote]

Yes, but this is one part of the whole discussion, not the entire part.

UNLESS: you go along with what I suggested right back on page one: rather than worry about different interpretations about reincarnation etc., let us simply examine the here and now and in the context of this topic what sort of continuity there is, if any. In human terms, this would involve examining how 'karmic continuity' plays out from one moment to the next. Is there a 'continuity-tron' or 'karmatron' as I have called it? Even if there isn't, what is the principle that connects the previous person to the current one? What continues and how or is any continuity at all an illusion? And if it is, what is the nature of this super-real illusion we all share, namely that we are born as infants, live for a while, age and then die?

Afterthough-sidebar:

Although I cannot 'prove' some of the things I have stated (usually as tangential examples and to keep things interesting with anecdotes etc.), still I think the following questions about 'evidence' or 'proof' are germane in principle.

For example (Kevin or anyone else):

Can you prove that water is wet?

And on a more advanced level, esp. viz discussing reincarnation in general or the tulku tradition in particular (albeit with the latter remember that the official definition includes books and statues!):

How can a person with sight 'prove' to a blind man that an orange is not blue?

tharpa wrote:You seem to be inferring that the self or consciousness (which seem to be interchangeable terms in you vocabulary)

The self is a function of consciousness.

. . .possess some sort of over-arching permanent umbrella-type function and that it would be this type of permanent consciousness principle that might 'reincarnate' in a new being.

In sane beings identity is constant over time. This is what makes sane beings able to reason.

To remind you, I am contrasting my own view, that reincarnation is only cause and effect - and which applies to all things - with the Tibetan view, that reincarnation applies only to sentient beings, and that significant portions of consciousness can somehow be transferred from one body to another fresh corpse at the time of death - a teaching that is intended to convey the idea that this is in fact when real reincarnation takes place - rather than during everyday cause and effect.

Kevin Solway wrote:When a person forgets who they are, we say they have lost their mind, and for good reason.

This is because mind is confused with the notion of self.

No, it's because the self is a function of mind. When the self goes, it is a sign that the mind has ceased to function - like when you snuff out a candle.

Kevin Solway wrote:I'm glad you said "hypothesized" because there is no evidence that it happens.

How do you know? Have you seen all evidence?

Those questions don't really mean anything. If I said that it wasn't raining outside because I've been outside and there is no evidence of rain, you could say, "Have you seen all the evidence?"

What evidence?

I've looked at what the Tibetan's like to think is evidence, but it is truly laughable.

You didn't produce one shred of evidence, for example, that the brain is the seat of mind, just citing vague mutterings like 'all people who have studied this agree' etc.

I have explained that "the seat of mind" is where the mind appears to be located. If you don't know why the mind appears to be located in the brain (including the brain stem) then there's nothing I can do to make it clearer for you.

You have already said that you believe long term memories to be stored in the heart, even though it has been demonstrated to you that this is impossible, since people who have a heart transplant do not lose their long-term memories.

So in my view your thinking on this matter is irrational.

Kevin Solway wrote:Also, I maintain than when something as basic as the identity/personality is not transferred, then so many memories are being lost in the process of transferrence that it cannot honestly be called a transferrence of consciousness at all.

Reasonable point, but so many variables in each term as to beg the question: what's the issue anyway?

I'm simply disproving the Tibetan idea that consciousness can be transferred to another fresh body at death.

If the Tibetans think they have evidence for this kind of reincarnation, they why don't they present it to science? Are they against science? Are they anti-knowledge?

Or is it perhaps something they don't wish to have examined, because it isn't true?

Again, I wish I hadn't brought this in if it is to be queried this way. Such things come from the arcane past

Such things might come from the past, but they are believed in the present. I doubt that I have ever met a Tibetan Buddhist who doesn't believe that stuff. And it is severely hindering their humanity. The reason being that for as long as they continue to believe in that kind of reincarnation, they will continue to turn a blind eye to the real thing that is happening in each moment and with all things.

the notion of literal reincarnation simply DOES NOT EXIST in the buddhist tradition anywhere.

I'm talking about Buddhism as it is practiced in the real world by real human beings. For example, the Dalai Lama suggesting that souls might come from other planets to allow for population increase. Or people believing that you have to wait till the end of your life before you can reincarnate your consciousness into a fresh corpse.

Kevin Solway wrote:

. . . refusing to discuss reincarnation in the context of how new beings come into existence

No, I've been talking about this all along. When you have one candle flame and with it you light another one, how does the new candle flame come into existence? There's no puzzle is there? It's exactly the same with everything.

And as I continue to say, I do not see how this simple analogy covers the whole gamut at all.

It's not an analogy. It's an actual description of reincarnation. This is the point you are failing to grasp.

There is no difference between the manner in which candles reincarnate, and how human beings reincarnate - ie, through simple cause and effect.

OK, I take it back about the flame versus sentient being business. As analogous processes it's fine.

They're more than analogous. It's the very same process of cause and effect.

Now: how do you define/describe the process whereby one flame becomes two?

The first flame is one of the causes of the second flame.

Is there continuity between flame 1 and flame 2

You tell me.

and if so what is the mechanism nature of that continuity?

If there is continuity, the mechanism is cause and effect.

And then: expand on the various types of causes and conditions that create a human and a cow birth

It doesn't matter what types of causes create humans or cows. You can sub-categorize causes endlessly.

One of the causes of cows is cow DNA, and one of the causes of humans is human DNA, and one of the causes of a candle flame is the candle.

Kevin Solway wrote:

what is the nature of a being at all.

A being is something that has being. That is, it exists.

Well, that is far too simple. Unless you are maintaining that pebbles have consciousness that is exactly the same as a human's, and that everything is the same as everything else.

No, I'm defining all things to be "beings". A human being is different to a pebble being or a candleflame being. Not all beings are conscious.

Usually the word 'being' in this context refers to a 'living being'.

A "living being" is a particular kind of being, which is contrasted with a "non-living being".

But there is a huge problem defining what "living" means, since there's no clear line between what is living and what isn't. Take a virus for example. It is halfway between the two.

If it doesn't, let us agree on that. Or if you reject the notion of a sentient being being different from an asteroid, then please explain so it is clearly established for further discussion.

A sentient being is exactly the same as an unconscious rock in the sense that it is entirely created by causes and also changes due to causes.

Kevin Solway wrote: All such things are caused and have effects.

Yes, but this is one part of the whole discussion, not the entire part.

It is central to my contention that reincarnation is about cause and effect, and thus applies to all things - not only beings with senses.

Is there a 'continuity-tron' or 'karmatron' as I have called it?

There is only cause and effect.

Even if there isn't, what is the principle that connects the previous person to the current one?

Cause and effect.

What continues

Cause and effect.

. . . and how or is any continuity at all an illusion?

Continuity appears if the mind creates the appearance of it. The mind does so if it is caused to.

Things are illusions only if you don't know their source.

And if it is, what is the nature of this super-real illusion we all share, namely that we are born as infants, live for a while, age and then die?

The nature of it is that it is caused.

[Edited for spelling]

tharpa wrote:Can you prove that water is wet?

Scientifically you can. The proof will of course be subject to being overturned.

It can also be proven purely logically, provided that water is defined to be wet.

How can a person with sight 'prove' to a blind man that an orange is not blue?

He can do so by presenting scientific evidence. But again, all scientific proofs are subject to being overturned upon further evidence.

tharpa wrote: <snip>

So this whole thing is both very real and also not real at all at the same time. The truth of impermanence is the underlying ground of continuity. Or as my teacher put it once in terms of the Three Marks (referenced earlier as the Four Marks):

Suffering is energy;
Impermanence is the consort you dance with;
Egolessness gives you the strength to be.
He didn't comment on the last one (peace/nirvana that is beyond space/time/power but he might have said something like:
insubstantiality is reality.)

And remember: thinking about all this too hard in the sense of coming up with a definite conclusion and definition can promote insanity! Dualistic mind cannot conceive of non-duality although it can sense the presence, hear the echo, smell its perfume. Somewhat.

tharpa;

Can you find that “moment of birth”?

I say,
Suffering is the energy;
Impermanence is the dance;
And Selflessness is your dance partner.

Do no harm,
clyde

Kevin Solway wrote:Identity is not illusory. It is a real construction of consciousness.

Kevin;

Thanks for the laugh.

Do no harm,
clyde

Kevin Solway wrote:
In sane beings identity is constant over time. This is what makes sane beings able to reason.

WOW! Kevin settled for sane. Hold tight.

Do no harm,
clyde

Kevin Solway wrote:

Carl G wrote:My question wasn't "are all things born and do all things die?" It was, "do all things dissipate like the wind?"

A cloud dissipates with the wind because the wind sweeps away the causes that brought about the appearance of a cloud.

It is the same with all things. As soon as the causes which cause them to appear are no longer there, they disappear.

True. My point is merely that as long as we cannot see all of our causes, it is wise to refrain from assumptions about rebirth. In short, we can witness the body "disappear" but have little knowledge of our other parts, or, even if we have other parts, such as soul or higher self.

We do not know the true nature of humans. Therefore we cannot say they behave like clouds.

We can know the true nature of all things in the sense that we know that all things are caused and all things have effects.

This is not an argument against reincarnation. It is a standard for further investigation.

Carl G wrote:In short, we can witness the body "disappear" but have little knowledge of our other parts, or, even if we have other parts, such as soul or higher self.

I don't know what you mean by soul or higher self, but if they are finite things (ie, not the Totality itself) then we can be sure they are caused and have effects.

It is even possible that our consciousness survives death fully intact (insofar as it does from moment to moment while we are alive), except there is so far no evidence for such a thing.

Kevin, thxs for your longer post in reply to mine above. I don't have time now to respond in bullet-fashion (but might later), however one thing:

it seems clear to me from that post that really what you are talking about it cause and effect, of which various notions of reincarnation and rebirth were garlandary examples rather than the actual subject matter.

Just like wetness is a definition and not something that can be proven by science (contrary to you -as usual - thoroughly unsubstantiated assertion, and since there is no karmatron and never will be, cause and effect do not exist. They are descriptions, words, no more.

Your notion of self (along with the assertion that mind 'appears' to be in the brain and that anyone who doesn't share this fantasy is deluded!) is also a thought, description, word. Even experientially it is a cognitive construction that on examination - using cause and effect analysis for example - can be demonstrated logically as non-existent at all, and through meditation practice the underlying nature of mind, akin to the screen underneath the images thrown up in the movie theatre with which the audience identifies, thus creating 'the movie', or 'a story'.

The problem is that people identify with their thoughts and thereby create their sense of 'me'.

Lastly, saying that everything is cause and affect still does not explain the difference between a cow and a human nor more importantly the essential nature of cow and human (as opposed to candles and asteroids). Yes, they are all products of cause and effect etc., but there is much more one could discuss/analyse about them, especially if one wants to have a discussion about various notions of rebirth/reincarnation which you seemingly wanted to do.

As usual, your assertions and generalisations about what Tibetan Buddhists believe are way off the mark as demonstrated by your obvious misunderstanding of various key basic beginner-level tenets in the system, held by the Tibetan tradition and assumed as givens. For those who have not understood that the conventional self is a fiction, any discussion of reincarnation is obviously a waste of time since it will be misconstructed into various vacuous theories about how personality dwells in consciousness and is moved from one body to another an all that other rubbish.

Last little point: the infamous transference thing doesn't involve waiting until death as you invented in your usual fashion but if one does transfer consciousness, then Body A, being without the full package of things necessary for life, dies. Disregarding whether or not the notion is 'true' as you would define it, you simply invented something from what was stated earlier and then built arguments on that false assumption. Later.

tharpa wrote:it seems clear to me from that post that really what you are talking about is cause and effect

Yes, I'm most certainly talking about cause and effect.

. . . of which various notions of reincarnation and rebirth were garlandary examples rather than the actual subject matter.

I have been making the case that reincarnation is simply another name for cause and effect. The language of reincarnation is simply a poetic way of talking about cause and effect.

. . . cause and effect do not exist. They are descriptions, words, no more.

In that case you are wrongly focussing on the words rather than their meaning. Look where the words point.

[the self] . . . Even experientially it is a cognitive construction

I've already made it very clear that all identity is a construction of mind, so you're not adding anything worthwhile here.

that on examination - using cause and effect analysis for example - can be demonstrated logically as non-existent at all

You seem to think that "existence" has to be inherent existence.

But there is no such thing as what you are calling "existence". All existence is non-inherent existence. This goes for the existence of cause and effect, and the existence of all identities.

The problem is that people identify with their thoughts and thereby create their sense of 'me'.

There's nothing wrong with creating a self so long as there is no delusion in the process. If a person is aware that all identities, all existences, lack inherent existence, they are living an enlightened existence.

Lastly, saying that everything is cause and affect still does not explain the difference between a cow and a human

I gave you the specific information that one of the causes of a cow was cow DNA, and one of the causes of a human was human DNA. So I gave you both the general explanation for the difference, "causation", as well as one specific cause of the difference.

nor more importantly the essential nature of cow and human (as opposed to candles and asteroids).

Once again, you need to define what you mean by "essential nature". If you want to include in "essential nature" all of the causes of a cow then its essential nature would be the whole of Nature - the same as for a human being.

On the other hand if by an explanation of the difference between a cow and a human being, you want only some of the causes, then I can tell you that these two forms are different because they have evolved to take advantage of different niches in the environment. Or I could tell you that humans have bred cows to be what they are, to produce food for humans.

You need to be more specific as to what kind of an explanation you want.

Yes, they are all products of cause and effect etc., but there is much more one could discuss/analyse about them, especially if one wants to have a discussion about various notions of rebirth/reincarnation which you seemingly wanted to do.

Then be specific as to what you want to discuss about them. However, whatever explanation will be forthcoming, it will necessarily be an explanation of cause and effect, since nothing happens by magic.

. . . your obvious misunderstanding of various key basic beginner-level tenets in the system

The theoretical tenets of the system is one thing, but I'm here only interested in what real living Buddhists actually believe - such as the Dalai Lama who thinks souls might come from other planets to allow for population growth here on earth - and such as the popular Tibetan Buddhist belief that we have to wait till the end of our lives before we can reincarnate (or that we cannot reincarnate without dying).

Last little point: the infamous transference thing doesn't involve waiting until death as you invented in your usual fashion but if one does transfer consciousness, then Body A, being without the full package of things necessary for life, dies.

That is exactly the same as saying that the transference happens at death, since the transference and death happen at one and the same time. You are only playing with words.

Kevin Solway wrote:

tharpa wrote:Last little point: the infamous transference thing doesn't involve waiting until death as you invented in your usual fashion but if one does transfer consciousness, then Body A, being without the full package of things necessary for life, dies.

That is exactly the same as saying that the transference happens at death, since the transference and death happen at one and the same time. You are only playing with words.

The way I understand it, a thought is an electrical impulse. Such electrical impulses are usually able to be measured when they occur in the brain (the seat of conciousness - but one could also sit on the floor). Sometimes, there is less or no electrical activity in the brain (one such condition is death). The energy obviously has "gone" somewhere because it has gone frome the brain. This is how I view reincarnation - basically recycled energy.

Much in nature seems to like a certain amount of cohesiveness and like things clustering together. Water molecules come together as drops, for example. Intuitivly, it seems likely that at least sometimes, the energy that has been clustered together in a brain may maintain some cohesiveness even after it is released from the body. Sometimes all of the energy may get scattered, and it could be used for vastly different things, like running a computer or the monitor screen - or it could cluster together with other energies and become a bolt of lightning. From years of reading and from other information sources on the matter, it seems that when there is cohesivness of the energy after death (I'm going to get razzed for this, but yes, I'm talking about ghosts), very few of the thoughts remain from the individual. They don't have full memories, but at most, just the amount of thought that could be on one person's mind at one time. Less intact ghosts may just be a ball of energy.

Memories are stored in the brain, but at the moment a thought is active, it is out of storage (although a copy of it will also be in storage). It seems reasonable that this cluster of energy in the form of an active thought could be released from the brain and stay reasonably intact. It also makes sense that without a recepticle for the energy to retreat to, it would be more susceptible to being absorbed by a greater energy pull.

As for this not necessarily occurring at death, as I said, although the brain is the seat of conciousness, one could also sit on the floor. One could dislodge much of their energy from the brain (such as in certain states of meditation) and occupy certain other places - even including occupying an unused portion of someone else's brain (sitting in someone else's seat). The stored memories, however, would not transfer. All that would transfer is the active thought.

tharpa,

So the real isssue is: what is it that continues if anything? Is there anything that continues at all? Is being actual, solid real as it seems to us as humans or is it more or less than that?

The real issue is that I'm trying to get a solid, philosophical, definition of bodily reincarnation. When I say "sufficient conditions of event A", I mean "if all the sufficient conditions occur, then event A occurs; and consequently, if event A did not occur, then all the sufficient conditions cannot have occured."

If you can't decide sufficient conditions, at least giving me some necessary conditions would be helpful. ("If event A occurs, then all the necessary conditions must have occured; and consequently, if even one necessary condition does not occur, event A will not occur.")

You used necessary conditions earlier when you quoted a text, where a man explained the four things that every Buddhist believes. That is a solid, philosophical, definition of Buddhist belief, in that he clarified the necessary conditions. I want a similar definition of reincarnation. What defines reincarnation such that I can say: "here is what it means to reincarnate, and if this is shown to be untrue, then reincarnation does not occur"?

The reincarnation you are using is different than Kevin's. He is talking about causality, which is a theoretical metaphysical claim. You are talking about bodily reincarnation, which is an empirical, physical (or "superphysical") claim. Being empirical, there must be some conditions that, proven to be true or false, would make bodily reincarnation a false picture of reality. These conditions will be identical to the conditions that would make bodily reincarnation a true picture of reality.

I have a translation of "The Tibetan Book of the Dead (Liberation Through Understanding in the Between)" in my bookcase, which I know addresses this very issue from the Tibetan Buddhist viewpoint, but I really don't feel like going through all the trouble of reading it to answer something that a self-proclaimed Buddhist apologist should be more than able to answer for me.

When we discuss reincarnation from one birth to another, or one moment to another, the assumption is that there is some 'something' that continues from previous to after. This might be likened to the notion of a 'karmatron'.

If there is nothing in body 2 which comes directly from body 1, then how could reincarnation have occured?

I wrote this (slightly edited) for someone else, but it may apply here:

Let’s assume that something is passed from one life to another, but that something is “a pattern (of some quality of our life)” [as one poster expressed it] or, as properly phrased in Buddhist terms, the unripened results of our karma (our intentions or here, our volitional acts). We may become aware of these patterns or the results, but we won’t be able to identify a specific former life from this awareness. Then, we won't be able to know directly whether that something is or is not passed from one life to another.

Perhaps this is why the Buddha suggested that we not worry about such matters.

Do no harm,
clyde

Clyde,
That would make both the necessary and sufficient conditions for reincarnation "some difference in body B that results from the actions of body A". Since there is absolutely no predictive power to compensate for the confusing quasi-mystical terminology (you can't know with precision either which effects will be caused by any given action, or which effect was caused by which prior action), there is no reason to choose this model over any other.

Thus, you essentially said what Kevin has been saying about reincarnation being another term for causality, except you over-complexified it by keeping the veneer of mysticism. Which does open you up to an unusual criticism, like so:

We may become aware of these patterns or the results, but we won’t be able to identify a specific former life from this awareness.

When I squish a bug, the bug is, for a brief instant, aware of one behavioural pattern of mine. In such a way, I have reincarnated into the bug that I squish. However, he only loosely becomes aware of the results, as he dies almost instantaneously. Unfortunately, he is unable to identify the specific former life from this awareness.

From this, I can conclude that when I squish a bug, he doesn't realize that I squished him.

---

Anyway, I don't think you represent tharpa's view. There are certainly more conditions than you have indicated.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The way I understand it, a thought is an electrical impulse. Such electrical impulses are usually able to be measured when they occur in the brain (the seat of conciousness - but one could also sit on the floor). Sometimes, there is less or no electrical activity in the brain (one such condition is death). The energy obviously has "gone" somewhere because it has gone frome the brain. This is how I view reincarnation - basically recycled energy.

All of the energy that flows through the body is used to either change the body or it dissipates as heat. It doesn't just flow through the body mysteriously and disappear into the ether.

Trevor;

The “veneer of mysticism” may be due to my nature and may be due to the context of where the question was originally asked (a Buddhist discussion board).

I agree that there may be no predictive power and no reason to choose one model over another. In any case, they are models and one is left with one’s preference.

Where was your criticism?

I represent my own views.

Do no harm,
clyde

clyde wrote:We may become aware of these patterns or the results, but we won’t be able to identify a specific former life from this awareness.

But that's exactly what the Tibetan Buddhists do; that is, they do in fact seek to identify a specific former life from an awareness. For example, after a Dalai Lama dies they look for a child who can supposedly recognize objects used by that Dalai Lama - establishing the link (they believe).

But when we look at reincarnation as being plain cause and effect then it is relatively easy to find patterns and identify a specific former life. Intelligence, for example, has a significant genetic component, and is passed from parent to child through the genes. There would also be mental diseases which can be passed from parent to child, genetically.

clyde,

Where was your criticism?

My criticism followed when I quoted you. ...bah, I thought it was funny, but maybe it was too accurate to your use of language to seem like a criticism :)

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The energy obviously has "gone" somewhere because it has gone frome the brain.

The power supply has simply been switched off.

Take your computer for example. Now its "thoughts" and memories are composed of electronic charges. But once you flip the switch then all the "thoughts" and memories are no longer supported.

What happens at death is a bit like that. Commonly the blood supply to the brain is cut-off (eg, heart failure), so oxygen is not supplied to the brain, and oxygen is necessary for supplying energy to make brain function possible.

the energy that has been clustered together in a brain may maintain some cohesiveness even after it is released from the body.

There's no evidence that it is released from the body, any more than the contents of your computer's RAM memory chips
are released once you turn off its power supply.

The stored memories, however, would not transfer. All that would transfer is the active thought.

Thought isn't possible without memory. That is, the essential part of any thought is memory.

Kevin;

I am not a Tibetan Buddhist and you are not a Tibetan Buddhist, so why should we discuss what a third person, the Dalai Lama who is not present, may or may not believe. And I see no value in projecting beliefs onto third persons.

Are you equating reproduction and genetic transference with reincarnation?

Do no harm,
clyde