clyde wrote:I am not a Tibetan Buddhist and you are not a Tibetan Buddhist
I'm not a murderer either, but that doesn't mean that I should refrain from discussing what murderers do, what they think, and what to do about them.
I have actually had a lot of training in Tibetan Buddhism.
so why should we discuss what a third person, the Dalai Lama who is not present, may or may not believe.
If we want to help other people then we need to establish their condition. That is why we need to discuss what other people believe.
Are you equating reproduction and genetic transference with reincarnation?
My whole argument in this thread is that reincarnation means exactly cause and effect, and no more. Therefore all cause and effect is reincarnation. For example, the lighting of one candle with another one, or genetic transference, etc, is all cause and effect, so it is all reincarnation.
You’re sounding like a ‘do-gooder’ whose only interest in this discussion is to help the Tibetan Buddhists and especially the Dalai Lama.
While it may be necessary to understand others’ beliefs and conditions in order to help them, is that really your intention? And wouldn’t you be more effective if you entered into discussions with Tibetan Buddhists?
clyde wrote:You’re sounding like a ‘do-gooder’ whose only interest in this discussion is to help the Tibetan Buddhists and especially the Dalai Lama.
I do believe in doing good, but I don't just want to help the Tibetan Buddhists. I also want to help others to see through the kind of delusions that Tibetan Buddhism has fallen prey to.
While it may be necessary to understand others’ beliefs and conditions in order to help them, is that really your intention?
Yes.
And wouldn’t you be more effective if you entered into discussions with Tibetan Buddhists?
Tharpa is effectively a Tibetan Buddhist. I have had exactly the same discussion I am having with tharpa with many Tibetan Buddhists.
In any case, there are many lessons to be learned from the mistakes of the Tibetan Buddhists, so it is useful to be on their case for that reason alone.
Kevin, in terms of the cow-human business, what I am getting at is this:
because part of the topic involves 'incarnation' or the more infamous 're-incarnation' (same difference), it seems that there is more than simply cause and effect to be discussed - or perhaps less. In other words, c&e covers everything in the relative universe, but if we are discussing something more specific, then other specifics might be germane. We are not discussing the nature of asteroids, or romantic poetry, or american electoral politics - all of which depend upon c&E, but reincarnation.
Trevor: that is an excellent question. If you have the Trungpa edition, the introduction has some excellent and brief summaries of the entire thing, although I don't recall there being all that much about reincarnation per se in the quasi scientific/materialist way that many here wish to consider. Rather, there are excellent, pithy descriptions of the realms as well as a description of what sort of dynamic happens after death in that post-life bardo. He does mention somewhere how the previous whatever might end up waking up next life in the body of a pig, but this is not a major theme - again if I remember correctly.
I have already tried to answer your question, however, by shifting the emphasis slightly, namely: can we identify the 'continuity principle' in this very life? That is the essence of the incarnation issue as I see it.
Can I enumerate such causes and conditions? Certainly not exhaustively but perhaps I can take a stab at the main parameters. Not surprisingly, they involve much of what is inferred in the notion of the infamous 'six realms', which can be regarded both as psychological states in the human realm and as a more or less accurate description of how various being such as humans, ghosts, animals and so forth 'incarnate' in this particular overall realm, loosely translated as 'the realm of desire'.
You can regard the realms as existential paintings, or dramas, fashioned from a basic pallette of colours. In this case, we start at the beginning, and again I have been hinting at this all along.
In order to have individuated existence, we need to establish a location, i.e. a spot in space and time. This is sometimes called 'the particular' in relation to 'the universal'. Another way of putting this is to say that an individual being establishes 'territory'. Territory is the possession of a moment in space and time, locality, individuated existence etc.
There are three primary colours involved in territory, which by necessity involves separated self and other, i.e. this 'me' from not 'me', aka duality.
One can either push away that which is threatening to existence, draw in that which is supportive, or ignore anything which doesn't need the treatment of the first two. In the buddhist jargon in modern english these are often called aggression, passion and ignorance, though other terms are used as well.
Now, if these are the primary colours in the palette, what is the nature of them, since clearly they are more than simply colours with which to paint, although it is a good analogy. What we are painting is different types of territory, aka 'realms'.
Here is a nice, short quote about the nature of the realms in this context:
"As we go along from moment to moment, day to day, life to life, awareness and our thoughts keep shaping the life we lead. Cumulatively, the effect is tremendous. We can create for ourselves a tunnel lined with rags and deprivation or an open world of wealth and genuine communication - dark worlds, bright worlds, moderate worlds - so many different worlds can be created based on karma we keep creating through our thoughts and projections." [ Entering the Stream, p 66]
Another way of describing the three primaries (or 'root kleshas in the jargon] is to think of the colours as various blends of pain and pleasure, which is brings us closer to understanding how realms are structured, with the 'highest' or 'least solid' being the most purely pleasurable (god realm) and the 'lowest' or most 'locally intense' being the most painful (hell), and all manner of variegations in between.
Such pain and pleasure are a manifestation of the type of way in which territory is maintained/perceived, essentially. A being with intense hostility to others finds themselves 'incarnated' in increasingly intense, claustrophobic and painful situations, in which 'other' serves an increasingly hostile and pain-inducing role, or perhaps one is a gaoler in hell inflicting pain on other; in either case the language is that of intense claustrophobia in which any experience of other, territorially (spatially and temporally) speaking, involves pain, and in this case, unsurprisingly, aggression.
So pure aggression is unadulterated pain, and pure passion is unadalterated pleasure, and pure ignorance is the absence of either pain or pleasure, including even ignoring that one has any existence at all, sort of like a slug or an amoeba, or a very complacent stupid human for that matter.
So I guess in answer to your question, you simply look around, whether at yourself, others, history, culture and so forth and begin to tune into the various 'motivations' at play in terms of these three primary colour-karmas.
And just like colours, there is no end of how they can mix and blend. There are asura-style animals, god-style animals, hell-style humans, hellish ghosts, god-like ghosts, human-like gods, god-like humans and so on ad infinitum.
If one wants only to break this down into scientific evidence and suchlike, it doesn't work very well because our methods do not include qualitative quanta such as the degree of wetness possessed by water versus mud, fog and so forth.
Similarly, there is no end to the degree of finesse and subtelty with which we can examine our own emotions, our own physical make-ups, talents, capabilities and behaviour, all in the context of their role in manifesting one or more or any combination of these basic primary strategies, which themselves are somewhat artificial divisions of the underlying one: that of having/holding/maintaining/exploiting individuated existence, i.e. particularity.
Therefore, the discussion of incarnation etc. necessarily demands a deep understanding of emotionality, how it relates with the underlying body-mind matrix we call a sentient being, including human beings like ourselves. If the notion of other beings existing in the same way seems too fanciful or far-fetched, it doesn't really matter, because one of the great faculties of human beings is that we live in the middle of the whole drama, so to speak, and frequently experience shifts of mind-emotion, whether from moment to moment, day to day, decade to decade, or more simply: situation to situation.
You can start with your basic family realm around the breakfast table (different every day depending), then go to the public street realm, then to the highly competitive or exploitative work realm, then out to a show to an entertainment realm, then on to dance in a much more passionate realm, then get arrested for drunk driving and end up next to a psychopath waiting to kill you as soon as the guard's back is turned, a sort of hell realm. All in a few hours! You can examine personal behaviour, species, political situations, national set ups, speech patterns, poetry, neurosis, compassion, cuisine, culture, costume and all the rest of it in terms of the realms model.
So actually I encourage you to read up on the realms, regarding them as poetry or a story if you will, and then see how they resonate in terms of daily contemplation of the nature of life etc.
To wrap up, the whole purpose of the realms paradigm presentation is to help explain the nature of the predicament that individuated existence has placed us in - also described in the Four Marks I posted earlier - and more especially from the human perspective as existential beings, thereby helping to make more sense of why one might find it desirable - to use a potentially dirty word! - to become liberated from what essentially becomes a self-perpetuating cycle of dualistic territory-maintenance.
It doesn't really matter if they are a scientific defintion or not, rather if contemplating them can be of use in our lives as 'philosphers' to use the term here, or consciously living beings perhaps is another way of putting it. If they work when blended in with experience, then they become a dharma or 'truth' or 'teachings'. If they do not work, then they are not dharma or 'truth' or teachings and should be disregarded as irrelevant.
I hope this is somewhat satisfactory as a response. If not, push further.
Kevin: cow DNA is both the cause of cowness and also the result of factors that engender a cow being. All you have said, therefore, is that a cow and a human are different. That is rather obvious.
However, the reincarnation issue is not so much about whether Kevins reincarnate directly into corpses or cows (diversionary examples), but rather what sort of broad paradigms are at work that make humans and cows, and whether such dynamics are similar or totally different.
Just saying they are all the results of karma (c&e), although true to some extent, does not address the specifics either of cows, or of humans or of the differences and/or similarities of both as 'sentient beings'. You continue to maintain that they are the same as flame transference. The mechanism might be the same, but there is more to the 'magic' of reality than mere process theory alone.
PS: you cannot prove to a blind man that an orange is not blue. In fact, you cannot prove the existence of colour to a (born) blind person at all. That was the point of that question. Similarly, although you can provide logical and other evidence that such might be the case, you cannot 'prove' to dualistic beings that duality is essentially not true, that totality - to use a simple word - is all there is. Logically yes; but proof, no. Neither you nor I can no more prove that reincarnation from one being to another exists as we can prove that it does not. The whole issue of 'proof' is irrelevant when discussing experiential topics. The only proof of such things is in the experience of the pudding of direct perception, which is ultimately subjective and for each philosopher/practitioner to determine on their own.
PS. I have studied with a Tibetan Buddhist teacher, but all in english. I do not regard myself, nor do any in my sangha, as 'Tibetan Buddhists'. We are American/Canadian/European buddhists. Not that it matters, but again: since you reject the most basic building block proposals of the tradition/approach, and certainly don't walk the walk, you are not in a position to judge the entire tradition which in any case is not monolithic. I have nothing to do with the Dalai Lama, for example, even though I have met with him and seen him and he has little or no influence on my particular tradition and current sangha. And this could be said of most Tibetan buddhist sanghas, not only of the Dalai Lama, but just about any other lama or school. Even within schools, most teachers have little influence/contact with students of the same school. It just doesn't work that way and never has. It can't. Things just don't work that way in a tradition that depends upon individual verification for its continuity. Indeed, the candle-flame analogy is perhaps the best one for describing the progression/transmission of buddhist lineages since 500 BC. They only relate insofar as a true flame is passed from one to another, however, there are so many totally separate lines of such transmission that only if indeed a true flame has been transmitted can there said to be any connection between all the millions of such flames around today.
There are many problems with institutionalised Tibetan Buddhism, both within Tibet and in how it has evolved in the modern context, no matter how it is labelled. However, these sorts of problems are inherent in any institution or group. They are unavoidable and to a large extent have little to do with buddhism per se, and much to do with contempoarary culture (both now and historically) and how things play out from day to day in navigating through such territories. There is always some sort of core essence that continues (or not) and meanwhile things on the surface/periphery that become less and less complete embodiments of that essence, aka 'flame' in the analogy.
I still feel, that despite many problems and inconsistencies, the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, and despite also great bouleversements situationally since the mid 1950's if not earlier, has a pretty good track record.
We'll see how good the Genius lineage is a couple of hundred years from now. Well, we won't, but hopefully others will.
. . . is all cause and effect, so it is all reincarnation.
Is it your view that the principle of cause and effect is identical to the process of reincarnation; i.e., that every effect is the reincarnation of its cause?
"I have had exactly the same discussion I am having with tharpa with many Tibetan Buddhists. "
The fact that each discussion is 'exactly the same' from your point of view is evidence of the dogmatic rigidity of your particular approach.
It is hilarious in some sense that you, a proponent of one key element of the buddhist teachings, have proclaimed that all modern buddhists are idiots and only I, Kevin, understand their tradition.
You could be right, of course. But even if 'Tibetan Buddhism' is such a lousy, washed-up tradition, it is amazing that all its proponents end up having the exact same conversation with one individual. Something is being very consistently transmitted.
Or again: it is just your own drama playing itself out again and again. Since you are the constant in the equation of multiple conversations, probabalistically speaking this is the by far the most simple and obvious conclusion to be drawn.
And I hope that many more buddhists will continue to knock at your door until you finally move on to new conversations that are no longer 'exactly the same'.
Such repetitive type karmic experience, by the way, is a dictionary-definition of the animal realm situation.
More poetry. More lamb! More wine! More female companionship! Also dancing would be good. Not to mention laughter!
clyde wrote:Is it your view that the principle of cause and effect is identical to the process of reincarnation; i.e., that every effect is the reincarnation of its cause?
Yes, I've said many times throughout this thread that it is.
I have had exactly the same discussion I am having with tharpa with many Tibetan Buddhists.
The fact that each discussion is 'exactly the same' from your point of view is evidence of the dogmatic rigidity of your particular approach.
What it means is that all Tibetan Buddhists are making the same errors. It's exactly the same with Christianity. For example, let's say that you wanted to discuss the existence of Jesus with Christians, you would find that they all hold to the same illogical beliefs. No matter what approach you used, you would see the same predictable responses.
It is hilarious in some sense that you, a proponent of one key element of the buddhist teachings, have proclaimed that all modern buddhists are idiots
I haven't said that. In some important regards I hold Zen Buddhism in higher regard than I do Tibetan Buddhism.
Although I grant that it is very difficult to find any modern Buddhists at all who has any reasonable amount of wisdom.
and only I, Kevin, understand their tradition.
I have never implied that I am the only person in the Universe who is wise.
You could be right, of course.
Certainly I could.
But even if 'Tibetan Buddhism' is such a lousy, washed-up tradition, it is amazing that all its proponents end up having the exact same conversation with one individual.
They have exactly the same conversation with anyone who espouses cause and effect in the way I do. It is the same as how Christians always have the same conversation with atheists.
Such repetitive type karmic experience, by the way, is a dictionary-definition of the animal realm situation.
The teachings of the Buddha are extremely repetitive - especially sutras like "The Large Sutra on the Perfection of Wisdom". So are you implying that the Buddha was in fact in the animal realms?
tharpa wrote:because part of the topic involves 'incarnation' or the more infamous 're-incarnation' (same difference), it seems that there is more than simply cause and effect to be discussed
The language of reincarnation is only poetic language used to talk about cause and effect. It's not meant to be taken literally. It is because Tibetan Buddhists take it literally that they think it is not mere cause and effect (eg, the kind of cause and effect where a parent is reborn in their children, or a person in their pets, or in their garden, etc). And so Tibetan Buddhists miss out on an infinite wealth.
c&e covers everything in the relative universe, but if we are discussing something more specific, then other specifics might be germane. We are not discussing the nature of asteroids, or romantic poetry, or american electoral politics - all of which depend upon c&E, but reincarnation.
See above for my definition of reincarnation. You want reincarnation to apply only to beings that have senses. But it doesn't. It applies to all things. All causes and all effects.
There's no good reason to arbitrarily exclude things without senses when we are talking about reincarnation.
cow DNA is both the cause of cowness and also the result of factors that engender a cow being. All you have said, therefore, is that a cow and a human are different. That is rather obvious.
That's not all I have said at all. I have given you other explanations for why cows and humans are different, such as the fact that they evolved to take advantage of different niches in the environment.
Again, if you want some other explanation for why cows and humans are different you need to be more specific about what you want. The fact that you are not clear about what you want indicates to me that somewhere along the line your thinking has stopped.
You continue to maintain that they are the same as flame transference. The mechanism might be the same, but there is more to the 'magic' of reality than mere process theory alone.
This is your main delusion, and the main delusion of Tibetan Buddhism - that "living beings" or "sentient beings" have some kind of magical thing that candleflames don't have. That is, the delusion that candleflames transfer by some kind of mere mechanical process, while living beings are fundamentally different.
In fact there is no difference in how the reincarnation happens. None whatsoever.
The only difference between us and candleflames is that we have different characteristics, just as one candleflame has different characteristics to another. But they all reincarnate in exactly the same way despite these different characteristics.
Neither you nor I can no more prove that reincarnation from one being to another exists as we can prove that it does not.
As I thought, you are simply trying to evade the whole issue.
It's like a born-again Christian saying, "God definitely exists as a person, but neither you nor I can prove it one way or the other."
you cannot 'prove' to dualistic beings that duality is essentially not true
Firstly, duality is true, since it is a creation of consciousness. And consciousness is a creation of the rest of Nature.
However, it is true that things aren't inherently existent. I have proven this to myself, and I am a being capable of creating duality, so I know your above statement is false.
K:
"Firstly, duality is true, since it is a creation of consciousness. And consciousness is a creation of the rest of Nature.
However, it is true that things aren't inherently existent. I have proven this to myself, and I am a being capable of creating duality, so I know your above statement is false."
Contemplate that first sentence deeply.
Contemplate the meaning of:
duality
true
creation
consciousness
Nature.
Proven this to myself.
Define especially the last phrase which right now is just an assertion, not a statement, logic or conclusion or anything else, simply an unsubstantiated assertion and one which, it seems, is the a priori for all your other assertions in this thread. In other words, 'I thunk it, therefore it is true'.
clyde wrote:Is it your view that the principle of cause and effect is identical to the process of reincarnation; i.e., that every effect is the reincarnation of its cause?
Yes, I've said many times throughout this thread that it is.
Well then, as I see it, there is no argument here; it’s all about preferences and selection. Cause and effect is the function of the matrix of mutually dependent occurrences (Indra’s net). You select one set of causes and proclaim those lead to the effect, I select another set of causes and proclaim those lead to the effect, and the other selects still another set of causes and proclaims those lead to the effect. We agree on the essentials and differ only in our preferences.
clyde wrote:Well then, as I see it, there is no argument here
In practice, Tibetan Buddhists reject the idea that a person can really reincarnate countless times while they are still alive, and literally reincarnating into every effect of their existence. I am saying they are wrong to reject this truth, since it is the essence of what reincarnation should be about.
Instead, they believe that reincarnation happens at the end of life, into a fresh corpse. And only sentient beings can do it.
You select one set of causes and proclaim those lead to the effect, I select another set of causes and proclaim those lead to the effect
That's not the argument.
I am saying that today's Tibetan Buddhists, along with many others, have overlooked cause and effect altogether, and have instead focussed on something that is make-believe and which makes them feel special. That is, they have focussed on something that is not supposedly "mechanistic" like a "mere" non-living candleflame.
"Instead, they believe that reincarnation happens at the end of life, into a fresh corpse. And only sentient beings can do it. "
Like I said several times earlier, you are not discussing the incarnation of sentient beings, like cows and Kevins, on any specific level, simply saying, on an essentially abstract, intellectual level: 'everything is the product of cause and effect'.
Everything. That is not a discussion about reincarnation per se, simply everything (relative).
Actually, your main point has little do with the law of karma, rather that nearly all modern buddhists are deluded about this, and their misconceptions about reincarnation substantiate this point. It is a separate point, btw. So let's address that point if indeed this is the main one.
I would appreciate, given your fiercely stubborn adherence to this view, some more direct quotations from well recognised contemporary buddhist sources along with some detailed commentary on your part illustrating why they are so wrong and you are so right. Otherwise, again, it seems like you are just making assertion after assertion backed by an occasional brief anecdote and vague generalisations referencing only your extensive (undocumented) experience.
PS: speaking for myself as someone who you label a 'Tibetan Buddhist' (using your vocabulary) I have yet to see one single statement of yours that expresses any 'belief' of mine. Not one.
Last edited by tharpa on Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tharpa wrote:A baby dragonfly perches on a bullrush tip
The entire world surrounds it, watching.
Climbing onto the bullrush means constructing a perfect intellectual understanding of the Universe. At the utmost point, one is perfect in awareness of the true nature of all things, and is capable of ceasing to grasp any mental construction.
But you haven't finished that building process, Tharpa. In fact, as the following quote shows, you're heading in the opposite direction, towards feelings and emotion.
" Compassion is
Tenderness of heart.
You say the Tao is possible
without tenderness?
With that sort of Tao, what petty larceny
do you intend?"
The human bodily organism called a "heart" is not the true heart. The true heart is wisdom: the understanding of Ultimate Reality - which is absolutely rational, relying not on emotion at all.
The Tao's heart is emptiness of all egotism, meaning empty of all beliefs, thoughts, emotions, and values that hold things to exist inherently.
When the Tao's heart is not present in the mind, then there is only pettiness, theft of consciousness, and the endless hell of confusion.
Kellly, nice post. You wrote:
"The true heart is wisdom: the understanding of Ultimate Reality - which is absolutely rational, relying not on emotion at all. "
True enlightened heart* is wisdom, compassion and power.
In Mahayana imagery this is exemplified as:
Manjusri, Avalokiteshvara and Vajrapani.
This also relates to what are called respectively mind, speech and body.
Mind is beyond place and time, pure awareness/awakeness.
Body is place and time, or 'being'.
Speech joins the two - any two for that matter.
Wisdom without heart has no being.
Beings without heart have no wisdom.
Heart, in this context, has nothing to do with a muscular organ in a body necessarily. Though just as it can be said that the seat of mind is the brain, so also could it be said that the seat of the heart is the heart.
And also it could be said that the seat of the body is here and now, which is why both wisdom and heart are found therein.
* rough translation of bodhichitta, the two words therein meaning awake/conscious (bodhi) and mind/heart (chitta). Bodhichitta is the mahayana buddhist term for enlightened mind, or in shorthand: enlightenment, although that is a result term not an essence term.
A perhaps interesting aside in terms of organs/the body in terms of this threefold matrix. Traditionally:
The brain/head relates to body;
The heart/chest relates to mind;
The throat relates to speech.
Last edited by tharpa on Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tharpa wrote:you are not discussing the incarnation of sentient beings, like cows and Kevins, on any specific level
When I explained how cows and humans are different because they evolved to take advantage of different niches in the environment, I was discussing the incarnation of sentient beings on a very specific level.
If you want to discuss it on a different level, you need to specify which level.
But the explanation will again be a simple cause and effect explanation, no matter which level you choose.
I would appreciate, given your fiercely stubborn adherence to this view, some more direct quotations from well recognised contemporary buddhist sources
I couldn't be bothered quite frankly. It's either something you can see or you can't. I have given you enough direct quotations already.
While I have attended a great many Buddhist teachings, never has it been explained in those teachings that reincarnation happens with every cause and effect (as opposed to at the end of life). Never has it been explained that parents reincarnate in their children, or Hitler in his victims, etc. This is because current Tibetan Buddhism completely misses the point of cause and effect and doesn't really understand it.
When I explain my correct understanding of reincarnation to experienced Tibetan Buddhist, including some of the most highly trained teachers, they look at me as though they have never even heard this idea before. It is completely alien to them. They turn their noses up and they have no appreciation for it whatsoever.
By contrast, if they understood it they could not help but to be filled with love. And it would make its way into every teaching.
I'm not blaming the Tibetan Buddhists for this loss. It's simply a result of living in times of spiritual darkness.
Kevin, the reason they don't understand is because you are not discussing the specific term 'reincarnation' or 'sentient being' rather something you have invented yourself based upon generalisations derived from your contemplation of c&e. You have appropriated a term, totally changed its context and meaning for yourself, and expect everyone else to instantly understand what you are on about. If that is all you can offer, it is rather feeble.
Just like eskimos have something like fifty words for snow, so also various buddhist schools have far more words for various emotions, as well as notions like 'incarnation' or 'death' or 'birth' or 'karma' and so on, even though in english all such different terms are translated with a single english equivalent.
Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about in these matters! By this I do not mean that your own insights and expressions are without value, simply that when you stray into comparative analysis without knowing the object of comparison, the result is futile.
Here is a simple example from the limited vocabulary we have been using - following your lead - on this thread. You distinguish between human and animal (as differieng states of consciousness experienced by humans). As such, you use two different terms to express two different notions.
And yet you insist that incarnation cannot pertain, as a concept, to sentient beings, rather to all composite things including rocks, animals and humans. There can be only one term, you insist, and any attempt to narrow it down to applying to sentient beings only is proof of idiocy. Ultimately, this is just a semantic game, not a real discussion, let alone contemplation since you keep insisting that the contemplation can only occur in the way you have pre-defined it.
Discussing the realms whilst insisting that rocks are the equivalent of sentient beings is something that hardly any Tibetan, unless hyper-fluent in English and knowing the tortuous road you have travelled to equate the two into one term referenced by the word 'incarnation', is again: futile.
Last edited by tharpa on Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tharpa wrote:Kevin, the reason they don't understand is because you are not discussing the specific term 'reincarnation' or 'sentient being'
The words don't matter, it's the actual content that is missing from Tibetan Buddhism.
The language of "reincarnation" is meant to reflect only the reality of cause and effect, but the Tibetans have misapproprated the term so that it now means something completely different. And the original content is now lost, like a town that has been left by wayside with the building of a new road.
