GENIUS FORUMS

clyde wrote:We masquerade as bodies. We pretend to be souls.
And we hypnotize ourselves with words.

Do no harm,
clyde

I wish it were that easy to let go.

In my opinion, whichever way one looks at it, the word ‘reincarnation’ evokes a justification to satisfy a false-ego and the age-old hope of immortality in some form or another, forgetting that no-thing exists beyond its causality created conditions, including influences.

sapius, well said. People who believe in life ever after, or naively assume that future reincarnations can only be nice ones etc. are basically indulging in hope, some hope of eternal egohood. This is the same fundamentally as those who (most of us) expect our lives to be safe, happy and prosperous. Same sort of cucoon mentality.

Kevin wrote: "However, one is hard stretched finding a modern Buddhist teacher who has an understanding of cause and effect, and therefore one has a hard time finding a real Buddhist anywhere today. "

They say when the student is ready, the teacher will appear, for that also is a function of cause and effect. If the student is like a vessel turned upside down, even if the teachings are poured into him/her, they cannot be received. Or if the student is like a pot with poison in it, the teachings will be deadly. Or if the vessel is cracked, they will enter and leave quickly.

If you could get him on your radio interview series, I think you might enjoy 'having at' Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, who is familiar with presenting detailed madhyamika, abhidharma and suchlike but is also fond of playing the sincere cynic, about institutions, tulkus, heterosexuals, students, gurus and so forth. (He directed 'The Cup'). His English is also fluent. If I could witness you best him in debate, then I would seriously consider your point of view.

However personally speaking, I think I am in both camps. Studied and practiced a certain amount, but have not 'leaped into the void' of full realisation, preferring to remain essentially in what you call the animal realm. So again, you make good points, though I don't see what pleasure you get out of denigrating entire populations of practitioners unless it is that of ignorant arrogance, a sort of asura-animal type mentality, in which constant comparison and one-upmanship - not to mention scorn for those 'beneath one' rules the day! But that is an overly personal remark, perhaps, even though it isn't meant as such (what would be the point on a cyber-forum?)

Although I have always found the realms fascinating to contemplate - along with the 5 buddha families - I don't think about reincarnation much because for me it is a little difficult to perceive how

a) a baby comes into being
b) what remains after death, i.e. what goes forward karmically speaking and what is essentially dissolved
c) fully accepting from personal observation that the 'self' is a fictive construct but a highly workable one, and one that informs how the outer world is structured to a certain degree, I sort of go along with the old nostrum that only a fully awakened Buddha can fully understand all the workings of karma etc. How such non-self selves can 'incarnate' in such sophisticated bodies and minds, the karmic capital for which is stupendous as the traditional texts rightly point out if you think it through for yourself, is very difficult to contemplate in any but the most general terms.

Therefore I am definitely one of those many modern buddhists who hasn't fully understood the workings of karma. For sure. Quiinn's writings strike me as those of a potential pratekya buddha type, and that level does penetrate into the 12 nidanas and thus into the workings of karma. One and half fold egolessness it is called in the jargon. Achieving this is extremely rare, no matter if there are all those great Mahayanist realisations listed 'beyond' it. So again, you are making some interesting points.

For me personally it has evolved into some sort of philosophy that is buddist derived but : each day is a complete whole, and one can measure the virtues and vices thereof (karmically speaking) simply by reviewing the degree to which one has been generous, disciplined, selfish, bound by habitual patterns of body or mind, caught in klesha, helped others etc. etc. From this simple point of view one can keep track of the current 'reincarnation'. Generally speaking, if one is making progress so to speak, i.e. not going lower every day, then hopefully some sort of virtue is being engendered.

At the same time, I fully realise that this is a somewhat chickenshit approach. But having reached for the stars when I was younger and been brought back hard to earth, there is little ambition remaining. My hat is off to those who become Genius's etc., but a sense of humour and ordinary compassion is worth just as much in my book right now, so again the real issue is: what have you done today, this very day? What are we doing now? Something like that.

While some people use the terms re-birth and re-incarnation interchangeably, others, including me, view the terms as two distinct functions. Currently, I understand re-birth and re-incarnation this way:

Re-birth is the experience that we are constantly changing and the realization that our sense of continuity is just that, a sense. Re-birth occurs from many points of view and repeatedly, such as moment to moment, or each morning upon awakening, etc.

Re-incarnation is the flow of one’s life stream; from the past, it is the sequence of events, including people, which brought us into the world; to the future, it is the sequence of events, including people, which we bring into the world. One can have many points of view of the flow and the focus may be “wide” that sees cultural, national, religious, etc. rivers of causes or “narrow” that sees tribal and family streams of causes. Some people believe in a literal transmigration of soul from body to body. I don’t, for there is no soul or self-entity to migrate and no body to incarnate.

Though some people seem to find re-incarnation fascinating to ponder, it is a distraction. Concern for past lives adds very little value as we can’t change the past. So, the wise and compassionate response is to acknowledge and accept our past. (There is no duty to learn all or any of one’s past and there is nothing about oneself to be learned in doing so that one could not learn by self-examination.) Concern for future lives adds very little value as we can’t predict the future with certainty, except that we are liberated.

Re-birth and re-incarnation can be said to occur; at least I currently hold that point of view (and that is all it is, a point of view; i.e., a way of understanding reality), but we live in the present and are creating our future.

Do no harm,
clyde

Kevin Solway wrote:The Dalai Lama's answer was, ". . . I don't know . . . perhaps other planets?"

Isn't the Dalai Lama supposed to be a fully enlightened buddha? If so, how could he not know the answer to something so fundamental?

I believe the answer is that he is not a fully enlightened buddha, but would buddhists believe that it was because nothing is knowable, or that one should not take a firm stand on anything, or something like that?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:The Dalai Lama's answer was, ". . . I don't know . . . perhaps other planets?"

Isn't the Dalai Lama supposed to be a fully enlightened buddha? If so, how could he not know the answer to something so fundamental?

Many people believe he is enlightened. But, personally, based on what I have heard from him, such as the above quote, I don't believe he is.

It should be noted that all those who believe the Dalai Lama to be enlightened are not themselves enlightened, so they are not properly qualified to judge.

I believe the answer is that he is not a fully enlightened buddha, but would buddhists believe that it was because nothing is knowable, or that one should not take a firm stand on anything, or something like that?

In all religions people are blinded by their own attachments so they cannot see things for what they are. People believe the Dalai Lama is enlightened only because they want to - because it gives their ego a boost.

tharpa wrote:If you could get him on your radio interview series, I think you might enjoy 'having at' Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, who is familiar with presenting detailed madhyamika, abhidharma and suchlike but is also fond of playing the sincere cynic, about institutions, tulkus, heterosexuals, students, gurus and so forth.

There are some Buddhist traditions that do not put so much emphasis on the crude reincarnation belief, such as Zen. Also a long-time contributor to this forum, Shardrol, tells me that her Buddhist tradition rejects the kind of reincarnation it would appear the Dalai Lama believes in. So it's not all bad.

I don't see what pleasure you get out of denigrating entire populations of practitioners

From my perspective it's simply a matter of calling things the way I see them. I believe it would be morally remiss of me to do otherwise. Sometimes people cannot see the rot unless you point it out to them directly.

I don't think about reincarnation much because for me it is a little difficult to perceive how

a) a baby comes into being
b) what remains after death, i.e. what goes forward karmically speaking and what is essentially dissolved

You really need to focus on understanding cause and effect - that's if you want to make a major breakthrough in your spiritual progress. Once you understand cause and effect all these questions and doubts immediately evaporate.

"You really need to focus on understanding cause and effect - that's if you want to make a major breakthrough in your spiritual progress. Once you understand cause and effect all these questions and doubts immediately evaporate."

I have no desire for breakthroughs. Those days are long over. I have no doubts about all this either, at least none I find disturbing. As I said, the incarnation issue doesn't much interest me per se because I cannot explain certain things because to do so would require a depth of insight I do not possess, so it really doesn't matter one way or another. I don't have to know exactly how water and earth are made somehow in order to relate to them properly. As yet, you have offered no explanation about birth/death either, rather seem more interested in karma/cause & effect in this life. Fair enough. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the reincarnation issue, which essentially you have addressed only by stating that many have stupid theories about it. Again, fair enough, but it hardly explains or offers anything original/germane to the reincarnation topic per se, which it seems to me, and also as other posters have intimated, is not really your issue, rather a polemic around the issue, which is understanding karma.

As to the DL, in the esoteric Tibetan buddhist tradition, he is not at all regarded as an enlightened buddha, rather a bodhisattvic emanation. Nor is he a direct tulku/reincarnation of the previous DL. As to what is said in the press and believed on the street, that is another matter.

I have always found it interesting that although I studied buddhism for decades, I never once studied reincarnation per se, nor was it ever the subject of any lecture; and yet that seems to be the main issue discussed by non-buddhists about buddhists. If this is the main legacy of the Tibetan tulku tradition, that is a pity, but also I suspect it is a hangover of monotheistic culture which assumes that all 'religions' are predicated on a belief system of sorts.

Given the societal base for such a tradition has been destroyed, it is more than likely that it will recede in importance since the karmic causes and conditions are no longer favourable for such an institution to function effectively. Which it did, although not without problems of course, like any system.

I was thinking about this stuff today - which is why I pop into forums, to find something interesting to contemplate here and there - and whilst at work observed the following:

although one's 'job' might be very mundane and involve decidedly 'animal realm' activities, nevertheless one can not only perform them as a human-human, but also every situation presents continous opportunities for developing and engendering wisdom and compassion. There is no end of subtlety in this: how one greets others, either colleagues or clients, how one approaches the dignity and precision of work, of service, how one cuts through office or other politics/hierarchy, along with concerns for status, progress, reward, punishment, fear of being fired, fear of being a proper leader, dealing with the corporate mindset etc. etc. etc. All situations are rich in lessons and learning. Seems to me that the human approach here is to regard life as an opportunity for learning, a way to develop both self and others. As such, it matters not what the external situation is. This is part of the lesson of the buddhist 84 mahasiddhas of yore, some of whom worked as kings, others as butchers, weapons-makers, pimps, prostitutes, fishermen, beggars, business people and so forth.

So the causes and conditions that matter most have more to do with view and intention than the external circumstance, although some situations are clearly more challenging to work with than others. It is very hard, for example, for a cow to understand cause and effect as Kevin is recommending and therefore unlikely that a cow will make it into a human realm situation, for the human realm is extremely intelligent and also extremely sensitive to oscillations of pain and pleasure, success and failure, ignorance and wisdom.

This is the sort of way I find such material of interest, not really getting into politics and generalisations that are of little relevance to daily life and actual insight.

tharpa,

This is the sort of way I find such material of interest, not really getting into politics and generalisations that are of little relevance to daily life and actual insight.

Daily life is too short a span of time to be of any sustained interest, or to provide any insight into long-spanning issues. If I want to solve a philosophic problem, it takes me weeks, months, or years -- the actual moments that make up a day are inconsequentially brief.

When I come up with a generalization that will sustain me for the rest of my life, it is much more valuable than something that has relevance to your life during a day. "Daily life" has no place next to "insight".

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:tharpa,

This is the sort of way I find such material of interest, not really getting into politics and generalisations that are of little relevance to daily life and actual insight.

Daily life is too short a span of time to be of any sustained interest, or to provide any insight into long-spanning issues. If I want to solve a philosophic problem, it takes me weeks, months, or years -- the actual moments that make up a day are inconsequentially brief.

When I come up with a generalization that will sustain me for the rest of my life, it is much more valuable than something that has relevance to your life during a day. "Daily life" has no place next to "insight".

Yes, but your long-term development or view is only developed and sustained moment by moment. I find a day a good long-term unit of sorts, or short-term for that matter, because each one has a clear beginning, progression and end, and is mirrored in the celestial rhythms of night and day, not to mention in our physical organs. I for one could not sustain non-stop meditation for six months at a time without sleep or food etc. Some have done so and my hat's off to them.

Any generalisation that will sustain you is probably a thought in any case and I suspect you will find that it doesn't! Thoughts are rather deceptive that way.

tharpa wrote:I have no desire for breakthroughs. Those days are long over. I have no doubts about all this either, at least none I find disturbing.

Well you did say the following:

it is a little difficult to perceive how

a) a baby comes into being
b) what remains after death, i.e. what goes forward karmically speaking and what is essentially dissolved . . .

. . . which certainly sounds like you are having doubts or questions about how these things might happen.

If you don't find these questions disturbing then it's because you don't find the subject significant - in which case I don't know why you are bothering to ask these questions.

Personally I find it interesting to understand if there is any truth behind terms like "karma", and the rest of language of rebirth. That is, to understand exactly what karma means, and exactly how it works - and to understand whether there is any truth to those masses of Buddhist teachings, or whether they are all drivel.

As yet, you have offered no explanation about birth/death either, rather seem more interested in karma/cause & effect in this life. Fair enough.

I'm not sure what you mean. I described in a previous post what happens at death - the death of the brain, and the corresponding loss of memory and personality. As for birth, you will need to define exactly what you mean by the term. At what point in time do you consider a person "born".

And I explained how karma extends from this life into future lives, through cause and effect.

I'm not sure what kind of explanation you are looking for.

As to the DL, in the esoteric Tibetan buddhist tradition, he is not at all regarded as an enlightened buddha, rather a bodhisattvic emanation.

Can a significantly ignorant person, who doesn't understand cause and effect, be "a bodhisattvic emanation" - I don't think so.

Can a bodhisattvic emanation give a useless and false answer to a person who asks a question him, as the Dalai Lama did?

Nor is he a direct tulku/reincarnation of the previous DL.

The purpose of all the tests they gave him as a child were precisely to determine that he was in fact the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama. It's not as though they were simply looking for the most wise person for the job. It seems to me that you are in a state of denial, as the truth is too horrible to face.

I have always found it interesting that although I studied buddhism for decades, I never once studied reincarnation per se, nor was it ever the subject of any lecture

I have attended many lectures and read many teachings on reincarnation, and all the realms of existence, and bardo states between lives, etc. These things are all extremely useful to understand if they are understood correctly.

and yet that seems to be the main issue discussed by non-buddhists about buddhists.

The reason Buddhists don't discuss it is because they are deluded, and believe in false reincarnation.

It is taboo to question it.

I believe a few Buddhists have the courage to question it a little bit, and consequently they do discuss it somewhat. But they risk being evicted from Buddhist communities.

Similarly Christians generally don't discuss things like how Adam and Eve gave rise to the entire human race - if it is an accepted belief in their religion and it is taboo to question it.

If this is the main legacy of the Tibetan tulku tradition, that is a pity, but also I suspect it is a hangover of monotheistic culture which assumes that all 'religions' are predicated on a belief system of sorts.

All religions are prone to the same delusions, and blind belief is a major one of those.

Kevin Solway wrote:

tharpa wrote:I have no desire for breakthroughs. Those days are long over. I have no doubts about all this either, at least none I find disturbing.

Well you did say the following:

it is a little difficult to perceive how

a) a baby comes into being
b) what remains after death, i.e. what goes forward karmically speaking and what is essentially dissolved . . .

. . . which certainly sounds like you are having doubts or questions about how these things might happen.

not at all. Admitting I cannot fathom something has nothing to do with doubt or question. I could also have said: 'I have no idea what water or air are really, but so what?'

Kevin Solway wrote: If you don't find these questions disturbing then it's because you don't find the subject significant - in which case I don't know why you are bothering to ask these questions.

I find nothing that you have raised yet all that disturbing at all. Do you? If so, what exactly?

Kevin Solway wrote: Personally I find it interesting to understand if there is any truth behind terms like "karma", and the rest of language of rebirth. That is, to understand exactly what karma means, and exactly how it works - and to understand whether there is any truth to those masses of Buddhist teachings, or whether they are all drivel.

I too find that most interesting, although I am not obsessed with the drivel factor.

Kevin Solway wrote:

As yet, you have offered no explanation about birth/death either, rather seem more interested in karma/cause & effect in this life. Fair enough.

I'm not sure what you mean. I described in a previous post what happens at death - the death of the brain, and the corresponding loss of memory and personality. As for birth, you will need to define exactly what you mean by the term. At what point in time do you consider a person "born".

forgot that. I suppose the issue then is: is there any continuity after so-called death, and at so-called birth what, if anything, comes from before? Also, I don't buy the contemporary (materialist-darwinian-theistic derived) dogma about 'the brain' being the main seat of life, thought, mind etc. It is just a (very important) switchboard, not a major organ. But that is a small aside.

Kevin Solway wrote: And I explained how karma extends from this life into future lives, through cause and effect.

I'm not sure what kind of explanation you are looking for.

I remember your statements about influence etc. but they did not get into any nitty gritty about how they relate to the birth of specific beings as such. That is why I said that the terms 'influence' and 'rebirth' being used interchangeably made both terms meaningless in this context.

Kevin Solway wrote:

As to the DL, in the esoteric Tibetan buddhist tradition, he is not at all regarded as an enlightened buddha, rather a bodhisattvic emanation.

Can a significantly ignorant person, who doesn't understand cause and effect, be "a bodhisattvic emanation" - I don't think so.

Can a bodhisattvic emanation give a useless and false answer to a person who asks a question him, as the Dalai Lama did?

That is your judgment, to which you are entitled. I am not a 'follower' of the DL's, but I thought his little book on the 'Meaning of Life' from years ago, which goes through the teachings of karma, 12 nidanas etc., quite good. I don't put much stock on your reportage of one particular question and answer. There are two many variables in such an interchange to be well represented in one or two sentences.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Nor is he a direct tulku/reincarnation of the previous DL.

The purpose of all the tests they gave him as a child were precisely to determine that he was in fact the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama. It's not as though they were simply looking for the most wise person for the job. It seems to me that you are in a state of denial, as the truth is too horrible to face.

In some minds, yes. In others, the explanation could be far more subtle, including understanding how cause and conditions work. For example, my teacher, a recognised tulku, said that although he most certainly was not the same 'person' as the previous, nevertheless had access to certain memories, including recognition of objects, individuals etc. You could use your own influence-style explanation in this thread to explain this rather than getting into any direct person-to-person reincarnation business. Certainly he didn't either view it or present it that way. To assume that recognising a mala can only arise through being a direct reincarnation is incredibly simplistic. imho.

Kevin Solway wrote:

I have always found it interesting that although I studied buddhism for decades, I never once studied reincarnation per se, nor was it ever the subject of any lecture

I have attended many lectures and read many teachings on reincarnation, and all the realms of existence, and bardo states between lives, etc. These things are all extremely useful to understand if they are understood correctly.

Then you know that most of the bardos being discussed have little to do with so-called rebirth, which is only one of them. I guess I am more interested in the bardo of life.

Kevin Solway wrote:

and yet that seems to be the main issue discussed by non-buddhists about buddhists.

The reason Buddhists don't discuss it is because they are deluded, and believe in false reincarnation.

It is taboo to question it.

Sorry, but that notion of taboo in terms of discussing various interpretations/views of karma, rebirth etc. - at least in terms of my experience in a buddhist sangha - is rubbish, aka false.

Kevin Solway wrote: I believe a few Buddhists have the courage to question it a little bit, and consequently they do discuss it somewhat. But they risk being evicted from Buddhist communities.

Interesting belief.

Kevin Solway wrote: Similarly Christians generally don't discuss things like how Adam and Eve gave rise to the entire human race - if it is an accepted belief in their religion and it is taboo to question it.

If this is the main legacy of the Tibetan tulku tradition, that is a pity, but also I suspect it is a hangover of monotheistic culture which assumes that all 'religions' are predicated on a belief system of sorts.

All religions are prone to the same delusions, and blind belief is a major one of those.

It is possiblet that most/many buddhists essentially follow blind belief. If you are correct, you are also correct that the tradition is dead, since the basis of the buddhadharmic approach from the get-go is to eschew any belief of any sort whatsoever and discover for oneself what is true (dharma) and what is not. This is why the first object of Refuge is the Buddha, whose example is simply this: he went and did the whole thing himself, leaning on no external factors, including 'beliefs' as props or justifications in any way.

In any case, whether all buddhists are ignorant cowards as you maintain or not is somewhat beside the point. You use that tradition's vocabulary freely. Without such vocabulary, I wonder how you would be articulating your view?

PS.

How would you describe the phenomenon known as 'water' in terms of the law of karma?

Or/Also - and for fun:

what is a 'tree'?
What is 'time'?

What is a thought?
What is mind?
Where does the mind stop and the movement of the finger begin?
What is birdsong?

Who are you?

tharpa,

Yes, but your long-term development or view is only developed and sustained moment by moment.

That goes without saying. However, that does not make the moment more significant than a long period of time -- it only makes the moment fundamental.

I find a day a good long-term unit of sorts, or short-term for that matter, because each one has a clear beginning, progression and end, and is mirrored in the celestial rhythms of night and day, not to mention in our physical organs.

For these very reasons, I find the day to be a deceptive unit. It seems significant, but it is based entirely on accidental movements of our planet: movements which do not actually have a clear beginning or end.

When dealing with human affairs, a century seems much too short. That's less than a handful of generations, which is barely enough time to see any significant changes.

When dealing with a single thought, the thought can never be contained within a single moment. I deal with it over a period of weeks. Really, if the biggest thought you have can be resolved within a day, you don't about significant enough issues.

I for one could not sustain non-stop meditation for six months at a time without sleep or food etc. Some have done so and my hat's off to them.

I can't imagine that anyone would come to any non-delusional insights if they didn't sleep or eat for that long. Sleeping, and treating your body properly, is a necessary part of thinking.

Sleep deprivation leads to hallucinations, delusions, and potential brain damage.

Any generalisation that will sustain you is probably a thought in any case and I suspect you will find that it doesn't! Thoughts are rather deceptive that way.

I use generalizations to spawn new thoughts, and I check thoughts against my generalizations. That is what I mean by sustaining. A generalization that is never false is an incredibly useful yardstick (for instance, I know that a contradiction will always be false).

Also, I don't buy the contemporary (materialist-darwinian-theistic derived) dogma about 'the brain' being the main seat of life, thought, mind etc. It is just a (very important) switchboard, not a major organ.

Obviously, you've never used drugs, suffered brain damage, or had a brain disorder. If you had, you would know first-hand how much of an influence your brain has on your mind.

Unless you can give an alternative source for the mind, backed by one iota of evidence, the "contemporary dogma", expressed by whatever -ists you want to call them, shows us the only possible seat of mind.

Admitting I cannot fathom something has nothing to do with doubt or question.

That is a shame. How do you consider yourself a philosopher if you don't try to figure out things you don't understand? (I'm assuming, of course, that you consider yourself a philosopher, or else you wouldn't be here.)

How would you describe the phenomenon known as 'water' in terms of the law of karma?

Water is caused to exist, and any action by water will cause events to occur.

"Water is caused to exist, and any action by water will cause events to occur."

You could say that about anything. It doesn't address anything specific about water. Generalities will only go so far, and that is not very far at all. Certainly your answer doesn't begin to fathom 'water' at all; although perhaps logically correct on some level - though unexplained and therefore incomplete - it is somewhat unimaginative, let us say. Reading your explanation of water, one would never guess that it has the quality of wetness, it can shine, freeze, nourish, destroy, trickle, flood, delight, terrify and so forth. As one of the five basic Buddhas - to use jargon from one tradition - it is an incredibly fascinating topic worthy of many tomes of commentary, not to mention lifetimes of 'thought'. That doesn't really come through in the above statement, though, does it?

If you can show one iota of proof that the mind is in any way produced by any one part of the body over any other part, or even from the body at all for that matter, then I might begin to consider whether or not the brain is central to that dynamic. In the same way that you argue that the brain is the core seat of mind, I could argue it is water: take water out of the brain and you don't have one. Therefore water is clearly the seat of mind. Certainly you cannot have one connected with the physical universe without water. Take water out of the kidneys, liver, blood, heart, lungs, marrow etc. and you will die instantly. So what does that prove?

I do not ascribe to being a 'philosopher', but I did very much enjoy some of Quinn's writings a few months ago and find the mix of buddhist terminology, insight, other terminology, and certain key ideas provocative.

tharpa,

You could say that about anything. It doesn't address anything specific about water. Generalities will only go so far, and that is not very far at all.

Actually, that generality took me very far. I know that if you give me any event, it is caused. If someone says otherwise, they are delusional.

If you can show one iota of proof that the mind is in any way produced by any one part of the body over any other part, or even from the body at all for that matter, then I might begin to consider whether or not the brain is central to that dynamic.

Have your frontal lobe removed. Sever your corpus callosum. Get stabbed in your medulla oblongata. Inheret schizophrenia. Have a stroke. Get brain cancer.

In the same way that you argue that the brain is the core seat of mind, I could argue it is water: take water out of the brain and you don't have one.

Do you honestly believe that water is the seat of mind, or are you just stirring up an argument because you don't have a real alternative?

If you honestly believe that consciousness arises from water, and not the structures that water enables, I'll look into debating how it does not.

I do not ascribe to being a 'philosopher', but I did very much enjoy some of Quinn's writings a few months ago and find the mix of buddhist terminology, insight, other terminology, and certain key ideas provocative.

Well, I hope you can sustain your interest long enough to become a philosopher.

tharpa wrote:Admitting I cannot fathom something has nothing to do with doubt or question. I could also have said: 'I have no idea what water or air are really, but so what?'

In that case I don't know why you would be interested in understanding anything at all. Perhaps you aren't.

Not being enlightened, you don't know what enlightenment is, and presumably you don't care. Is that the case?

I find nothing that you have raised yet all that disturbing at all. Do you? If so, what exactly?

If the traditions of Buddhism contain some important truths, but modern Buddhists are doing everything in their power to destroy those truths (consciously or not), any person in the human realms would be disturbed by that event.

If the Dalai Lama is giving blatantly false teachings then a person in the human realm will be naturally disturbed by that event.

However, an animal-realm being would not be disturbed by it, as it has no impact on them.

If the Dalai Lama were wise, he would publicly pronounce, "I have nothing to do with the previous Dalai Lamas, other than that I am part of the same tradition." And he would repeat this until people understood it.

Kevin Solway wrote:Personally I find it interesting to understand if there is any truth behind terms like "karma", and the rest of language of rebirth. That is, to understand exactly what karma means, and exactly how it works - and to understand whether there is any truth to those masses of Buddhist teachings, or whether they are all drivel.

I too find that most interesting, although I am not obsessed with the drivel factor.

You are not being consistent. Before, you said that you weren't interested in understanding how or why a baby comes into being, or what remains after death or goes forward karmically, and what is dissolved.

Since I can't find any consistency to your thinking there's nothing for me to respond to.

But if, as you suggest, you are actually in the animal realms, then that would explain it.

forgot that. I suppose the issue then is: is there any continuity after so-called death

Are you actually interested in the answer to this question or not? I presume not, since the question has already been answered.

and at so-called birth what, if anything, comes from before?

This too has been answered.

Also, I don't buy the contemporary (materialist-darwinian-theistic derived) dogma about 'the brain' being the main seat of life, thought, mind etc. It is just a (very important) switchboard, not a major organ.

Try physically destroying the frontal lobes of your brain and see what effect that has on your personality.

It is known that memories are stored in the brain so it is fair to say that the brain is the main seat of personality.

That is not to say that the brain is an independent entity - and modern science doesn't say that it is.

I remember your statements about influence etc. but they did not get into any nitty gritty about how they relate to the birth of specific beings as such.

I gave you the example of a parent being reborn in their children. You can't be more specific than that.

I also gave you the example of Hitler being reborn as neo-nazis, and also as the specific people who suffered as a result of his actions.

It seems you have a mental block that prevents you from taking-in this data.

he nevertheless had access to certain memories, including recognition of objects, individuals etc.

Even if this is true, and it probably isn't, it is meaningless.

Even if a person were able to recognize an object that was used by a person who recently died, that doesn't mean that the person has more potential for wisdom than someone who was not able to recognize an object of the dead person.

There are countless psychics throughout the world who claim to have such skills as those of which you speak, and those people are generally morons.

This tradition is so obviously intended to make it look like the child is in some way the literal reincarnation of the dead person, which is why they can recognize objects from that person's life.

By defending this lie and deception, tharpa, it makes you seem like a criminal trying to cover-up a crime.

I guess I am more interested in the bardo of life.

You have too limited a view of life. In reality it extends into the infinite past and infinite future.

But, if, as you say, you have an animal-consciousness, then all is as it should be since animals are only concerned with the now and with the next meal.

In any case, whether all buddhists are ignorant cowards as you maintain or not is somewhat beside the point. You use that tradition's vocabulary freely. Without such vocabulary, I wonder how you would be articulating your view?

Yes, I've already said that the historical teachings are useful.

"Take the brain away and you have no consciousness" is not in itself a good argument for the brain being the seat of consciousness, as you have recognized, tharpa. What is a good argument for this, though, is that injury to specific parts of the brain and increasing or decreasing the levels of specific chemicals will change specific parts of consciousness in fairly predictable ways.

Clyde,

Re-birth is the experience that we are…

Re-incarnation is the flow of…

I understand your expressions, but yet, what I really meant in my earlier post was; why don’t we get past of these age-old terminologies? Why do we have to keep on reinterpreting THEM when they do not essentially serve the purpose of understanding plain and simple core facts of causality? We are essentially thinking the other way around. We need to start with thoroughly understanding the implications of causality, and then think or talk of anything else, and that that should not be in conflict with your core realization.

-

Tharpa, my earlier post was not in your favor as such. IMO the same thing applies to your overly enthusiastic inconsistent thinking too, which emerges from the same over indulgence in terminologies.

Kevin Solway wrote:

tharpa wrote:Admitting I cannot fathom something has nothing to do with doubt or question. I could also have said: 'I have no idea what water or air are really, but so what?'

In that case I don't know why you would be interested in understanding anything at all. Perhaps you aren't.

Not being enlightened, you don't know what enlightenment is, and presumably you don't care. Is that the case?

No. As usual, you paint with a broad brush and seemingly out of touch with any specific actuality.

Kevin Solway wrote:

I find nothing that you have raised yet all that disturbing at all. Do you? If so, what exactly?

If the traditions of Buddhism contain some important truths, but modern Buddhists are doing everything in their power to destroy those truths (consciously or not), any person in the human realms would be disturbed by that event.

If the Dalai Lama is giving blatantly false teachings then a person in the human realm will be naturally disturbed by that event. However, an animal-realm being would not be disturbed by it, as it has no impact on them.

If the Dalai Lama were wise, he would publicly pronounce, "I have nothing to do with the previous Dalai Lamas, other than that I am part of the same tradition." And he would repeat this until people understood it.

Since I find most of what you write about this unsubstantiated and contrary to my own experience, why would I find it disturbing? On the contrary, you are the one who seem disturbed by all this. Perhaps this is a good thing for you. I am not disturbed that you distort and misreprent the buddhist teachings and tradition. Since you are not part of them and obviously haven't walked the walk, it is hardly to be expected that you would know how to talk the talk. I am trying to see under the pontifications to any intelligence beneath. It's hard going, but perhaps not a total waste of time. Distinguishing between intellectual thoughts and actual insight underneath them is stimulating.

Kevin Solway wrote:Personally I find it interesting to understand if there is any truth behind terms like "karma", and the rest of language of rebirth. That is, to understand exactly what karma means, and exactly how it works - and to understand whether there is any truth to those masses of Buddhist teachings, or whether they are all drivel.

I too find that most interesting, although I am not obsessed with the drivel factor.

You are not being consistent. Before, you said that you weren't interested in understanding how or why a baby comes into being, or what remains after death or goes forward karmically, and what is dissolved.
[/quote] I didn't say I wasn't interested. I said I accepted that there was a limit (thus far at least) to what I can understand. I do not understand how clouds form; I do not understand how birds come into being; I do not understand exactly what water is and where it came from. I do not understand (i.e. cannot completely explain or fathom) where I came from - if anywhere - and what holds it all together day by day.

Of course I can say 'karma', causes and conditions. Nothing wrong with that and obviously the best explanation going (imho). But to see those workings in terms of specifics, like water for example, or any particular grasshopper on my lawn, well that is something else. The reason I have given up striving for enlightenment and all the rest of it is that it is all around, every day. To me, there is so much of interest in the here and now, so to speak, including writing this post, that I find general theories and dharma politics essentially a distraction.

Kevin Solway wrote: Since I can't find any consistency to your thinking there's nothing for me to respond to.

But if, as you suggest, you are actually in the animal realms, then that would explain it.

You seem very quick to judge. In any case, such realms come and go rapidly. Being aware of their fluctuation is in fact a sign of being in the human realm, by the way. Some space and awareness principle providing an experiential context beyond the merely behavioural at all.

Kevin Solway wrote:

forgot that. I suppose the issue then is: is there any continuity after so-called death

Are you actually interested in the answer to this question or not? I presume not, since the question has already been answered.

and at so-called birth what, if anything, comes from before?

This too has been answered.

I disagree. See below about mothers and Hitler.

Also, I don't buy the contemporary (materialist-darwinian-theistic derived) dogma about 'the brain' being the main seat of life, thought, mind etc. It is just a (very important) switchboard, not a major organ.

Try physically destroying the frontal lobes of your brain and see what effect that has on your personality.

It is known that memories are stored in the brain so it is fair to say that the brain is the main seat of personality.

That is not to say that the brain is an independent entity - and modern science doesn't say that it is.

[/quote]

Your destroying brain lobes etc. I have already answered. Try removing the water from you kidneys and seeing how long you can live. Speaking of the kidneys, they are the main source of short-term memory, whereas the heart stores long-term memory. Western science has skoffed at such fanciful, deeply-entrenched notions from Chinese medicine, one of whose surgeons performed successful heart transplants during the time of Christ but rejected that sort of approach as missing the point entirely. The chap in Florida who had a transplant and then kept having dreams of the killer who had murdered his donor, and went to the police and drew the sketches etc. so that they caught his donor's killer would tend to lend some credence to this theory. If you put a spanner in the switchboard and smatch around a few circuits, various appliances in the house/town etc. won't work. That doesn't mean that those circuits are the source of the power etc. In fact, the source of the power was the over-arching design of the entire power-grid and so forth, not even physical at all. It's sort of endless contemplating all the inter-connections of anything. The reason we think 'it's all in the brain' nowadays is just because we are out of touch with the body/earth and are following the materialist fallacies inherited from monotheistic dogmas which separated Man and Nature. Such primitive beliefs will pass, no doubt to be replaced by others. Animal thinking is very sophisticated, but stays stuck in a certain rut. Nowadays that rut is believing that people are simply physical mechanisms, that there is no such thing as mind really beyond it being something produced by the rubbing together of physical (i.e. biological, neurological, subatomic etc. ) sticks. The lightning striking the mud theory. Very primitive. And worse than that: no fun at all.

Kevin Solway wrote:

I remember your statements about influence etc. but they did not get into any nitty gritty about how they relate to the birth of specific beings as such.

I gave you the example of a parent being reborn in their children. You can't be more specific than that.

I also gave you the example of Hitler being reborn as neo-nazis, and also as the specific people who suffered as a result of his actions.

It seems you have a mental block that prevents you from taking-in this data.

Yes, but I find those things rather too flimsy to be called 'explanations'. Forgive me for not grocking them as such. If, as you say, a mother is reborn in her children, then presumably you are saying that any new baby that is born comes from their mother (and father etc.) who are still alive. So logically speaking, either they are only a partial person since the others are alive, or maybe the parents just planted a seed which then grows into a new full person. I am interested in the nature and essence of that seed, just as I am interested in the nature and essence of water and air.

The business about Hitler is rather silly on the surface, but I think I get the point. Realms, or states of mind/emotion, can be transmitted and then become part of the body-mind corpus, and therefore personality, of those involved. All those zillions of people who watch television are actually absorbing a certain type of incarnation that they pass on to the next moment and their children. In a few generations, no doubt, we will all be born with remote control capabilities in our fingers and eyeballs making it unnecessary to use physical ones. The last was a joke, in case you didn't realise. But your main point about how influence passing from one to another is an aspect of reincarnation is a nice one. I still don't think it comes close to describing the whole enchilada, including where Mary our infamous cow comes from, or who exactly she is, but I gather from this thread that you don't care much for cows, since they are the current incarnations of all the corrupt, ignorant buddhists you so love to disparage.

Asuras love being above everyone else. That is why they are always fighting to be there!

Kevin Solway wrote:

he nevertheless had access to certain memories, including recognition of objects, individuals etc.

Even if this is true, and it probably isn't, it is meaningless.

Even if a person were able to recognize an object that was used by a person who recently died, that doesn't mean that the person has more potential for wisdom than someone who was not able to recognize an object of the dead person.

There are countless psychics throughout the world who claim to have such skills as those of which you speak, and those people are generally morons.

This tradition is so obviously intended to make it look like the child is in some way the literal reincarnation of the dead person, which is why they can recognize objects from that person's life.

By defending this lie and deception, tharpa, it makes you seem like a criminal trying to cover-up a crime.

You make some good points, and I have some problems with the tradition, especially if continued in the West/modern world, which has no sense of place any more, i.e. contained location. But try as I might to dismiss the whole thing, I can't get around the fact as experienced directly in this life, that this same tradition is effective at producing very accomplished people. It's certainly not perfect, but it has a very high batting average. Of course you say they are all phonies. I have come to the conclusion that you are telling the truth. From your point of view. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is truth and wisdom. For you the tradition stinks, is shallow, based on falsehood, and all its followers are fools. That is the world you live in. We are all entitled to live in whatever realm we please. That is the great wonder of being in the human (literal) versus the animal (literal) realm. I trust you are enjoying yours and living it productively. Despite all these terrible buddhist cowards whose very existence is so disturbing to you!

Kevin Solway wrote:

I guess I am more interested in the bardo of life.

You have too limited a view of life. In reality it extends into the infinite past and infinite future.

Frankly, my dear, I really don't think you have any idea a) who tharpa is and b) about any of this stuff. If you did, you would AT THE VERY LEAST have more of a sense of humour about things, and not be so quick to judge.

Kevin Solway wrote: But, if, as you say, you have an animal-consciousness, then all is as it should be since animals are only concerned with the now and with the next meal.

In any case, whether all buddhists are ignorant cowards as you maintain or not is somewhat beside the point. You use that tradition's vocabulary freely. Without such vocabulary, I wonder how you would be articulating your view?

Yes, I've already said that the historical teachings are useful.

[/quote]

In that tradition, the historical teachings, by definition, are only 50% of 'the dharma'. Unless they are lived, which includes taking the refuge vows, working with elders and sangha etc., they are just words, thoughts, empty concepts. It is nice to hear that the concepts are taken seriously by non-practictioners and other heretics (to use the traditional term from 'trtika'!), but ultimately it is up to those who actually practice and live those teachings to ensure that the vocabulary etc. survives into the next millenia. Which it only should do if it remains relevant to individual and group human lives, in promoting virtue, wisdom, compassion, effective teaching of mindfulness and awareness and so forth. If it doesn't actually effect people's real lives, on all levels, then it ain't worth the paper it's written on.

tharpa, what you must understand is that this so call board of genius is actually comprised of members who relish the destruction of rational thought. They're average intellects who see this post modern process of destruction as enlightenment. It's sad really.

Sapius;

OK by me; the question of re-birth/re-incarnation was not raised by me, nor was this thread started by me.

Perhaps you will begin a thread with your understanding of causation (another “age-old terminology”) and describe how causation works. Also, it seems that discussions of causation inevitably lead to questions of “First Cause”. How do you address that issue?

Do no harm,
clyde

Kevin Solway wrote:If the Dalai Lama were wise, he would publicly pronounce, "I have nothing to do with the previous Dalai Lamas, other than that I am part of the same tradition." And he would repeat this until people understood it.

Does the DL know that he is not the actual previous DLs and feeds his ego by deluding others, or was he sufficiently brainwashed from the time he was an infant or toddler that he was the actual DL that he, too, is deluded? I would suspect that through history there have been some periods of each in each DL, but it seems especially dangerous to the Buddhist religion to intentionally pass on a legacy of delusion for the masses to follow.

I suspect this was a case of the sort of "trick" that you and Dan have touted in the past to try to trick people into enlightenment. The less enlightened would like to believe that there is someone out there - a parent-like figure - with all of the answers. By giving that illusion to one person and guiding that person to be as wise as possible as their only priority in life, the less enlightened theoretically should at least be provided with a rather wise leader to look to. Anyone achieving enough enlightenment to see past the mirage would not need such a leader anyway, so the main point would be to just provide a leader to those who needed one.

I believe that anyone without physical or environmental brain damage can be raised in such a way to at least become rather wise. The ability to become fully enlightened is another matter, but I believe the quantity there is far greater than the 2 per century you believed a couple of decades ago (but hey, you were a kid in Austrailia - you did actually get a much bigger world-view than could be expected under those conditions). We can see that this is not the optimal approach, but I can at least see what they were trying to do, and it was probably better than nothing. In the time of kingdom-mentality, it probably looked like a really good idea.

tharpa,
I know that was for Kevin, but this comment struck me as so ridiculous I can't hold my tongue.

Nowadays that rut is believing that people are simply physical mechanisms, that there is no such thing as mind really beyond it being something produced by the rubbing together of physical (i.e. biological, neurological, subatomic etc. ) sticks. The lightning striking the mud theory. Very primitive. And worse than that: no fun at all.

"Nowadays" -- implies you have a real historical sense. (Now, as opposed to 200 years ago when the universe was considered a large mechanical clock?)

"Simply physical mechanisms" -- implies that because something is physical or mechanical, it's simple. (It must be logical, but that doesn't mean it's simple.)

"no such thing as mind beyond it" -- implies that mind needs a magical source to be significant, as though Nature is not sufficient to produce mind by itself.

"Rubbing together of physical sticks... the lightning striking the mud theory...." -- disparages all of physics from a position of ignorance.

"Very primitive." -- implies that you have a superior theory.



I disagree with all of this.

You have not shown yourself to possess a coherent historical sense (when you say "nowadays", many of your notions are based on conceptual models of the universe that nobody even uses anymore). Natural processes are sufficient to produce mind: the hard problem is not whether or not they do so, but why they produce the mind that they do.

Physics has gone a long way since the rubbing together of sticks (I think you're a few millenia behind on that one); and in biology, the "lightning striking mud theory" was performed in a laboratory several decades ago (electricity arc'd through a primordial atmosphere of methane, water vapour, nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide produces simple amino acids... the building blocks of life).

Lastly, on top of your vapid elementary awareness of science, your obsession with ancient Chinese medicine places YOU in the primitive position. Get with the times. Maybe then you can say what people believe "nowadays".

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:tharpa,
I know that was for Kevin, but this comment struck me as so ridiculous I can't hold my tongue.

Nowadays that rut is believing that people are simply physical mechanisms, that there is no such thing as mind really beyond it being something produced by the rubbing together of physical (i.e. biological, neurological, subatomic etc. ) sticks. The lightning striking the mud theory. Very primitive. And worse than that: no fun at all.

"Nowadays" -- implies you have a real historical sense. (Now, as opposed to 200 years ago when the universe was considered a large mechanical clock?)

"Simply physical mechanisms" -- implies that because something is physical or mechanical, it's simple. (It must be logical, but that doesn't mean it's simple.)

No, that was not my use of the word 'simply' in that sentence. Adverbially it was equivalent to a statement like: 'that's simply absurd.'

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: "no such thing as mind beyond it" -- implies that mind needs a magical source to be significant, as though Nature is not sufficient to produce mind by itself.

your assumption that anything beyond the physical is 'magical' is exactly the sort of materialist superstition evidenced by your belief - or disbelief - in 'magic' as the only alternative.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: "Rubbing together of physical sticks... the lightning striking the mud theory...." -- disparages all of physics from a position of ignorance.

"Very primitive." -- implies that you have a superior theory.

I disagree with all of this.

You have not shown yourself to possess a coherent historical sense (when you say "nowadays", many of your notions are based on conceptual models of the universe that nobody even uses anymore). Natural processes are sufficient to produce mind: the hard problem is not whether or not they do so, but why they produce the mind that they do.

Physics has gone a long way since the rubbing together of sticks (I think you're a few millenia behind on that one); and in biology, the "lightning striking mud theory" was performed in a laboratory several decades ago (electricity arc'd through a primordial atmosphere of methane, water vapour, nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide produces simple amino acids... the building blocks of life).

Lastly, on top of your vapid elementary awareness of science, your obsession with ancient Chinese medicine places YOU in the primitive position. Get with the times. Maybe then you can say what people believe "nowadays".

[/quote] I am not inspired to answer the rest. Since you find tharpa's point of view beneath contempt - which is fine by tharpa - there is no point. Or maybe: just not in the mood to continue little arguments that avoid passionate discussion versus endless ad hominems. Boring!! Does anyone around here know some dirty/funny jokes about reincarnation?! I am sure there are plenty out there....

tharpa,

No, that was not my use of the word 'simply' in that sentence. Adverbially it was equivalent to a statement like: 'that's simply absurd.'

Well, there were two possible uses of that word. Either you meant it to mean "merely physical mechanisms", or "wholly physical mechanisms". Judging from context, in particular how you denigrated physicalist notions of the universe as "primitive", it is understandable that I assumed you meant the former.

your assumption that anything beyond the physical is 'magical' is exactly the sort of materialist superstition evidenced by your belief - or disbelief - in 'magic' as the only alternative.

Anything beyond the physical is either metaphysical or magical. If it describes the principles of everything within reality, it's metaphysics. If it tries to go beyond the principles of reality, then it's magical. It's that simple.

The mind must be either physical or explained as a necessary component of an ontology. The only other option is magic.

Since you have not offered an ontological alternative (and instead offered a magical alternative, in the form of 'water' being the seat of consciousness), I can only assume that when you try to go beyond physics, you are trying to go into the territory of magic.

Disbelief in magic is not superstition: on the contrary, it is a firm grip of reality that does not allow for any deceptive flights of fancy (belief in non-causal entities, true contradictions, etc.)

I am not inspired to answer the rest. Since you find tharpa's point of view beneath contempt - which is fine by tharpa - there is no point.

No, your point of view is wrong. That is all. I suggest that you cannot find the inspiration to answer because you do not have a ready answer. Your argument is flimsy, and has crumbled after only the briefest exchange. You need a new point of view.

Or maybe: just not in the mood to continue little arguments that avoid passionate discussion versus endless ad hominems.

Your 'passionate discussion', if not honest argument, must be 'self-congratulatory lies and wishful thinking'. I told you that you are wrong and you gave way instantly: you were not able to sustain even a little argument before crumbling to dust (woe be you if you ever find yourself in an important one).

Now, I'm not apologizing for the ad hominems. Not only are they mild, they are right where I want them. And, none of them directly interferes with my valid points about holes in your obviously false system of beliefs. Some of your personal flaws do irritate me: the biggest one being your need for excitement and fun in your thinking. That is a sure-fire recipe for delusion.

When you say things like this:

Boring!! Does anyone around here know some dirty/funny jokes about reincarnation?! I am sure there are plenty out there....

...I just picture someone who struggles at every turn not to think about anything.