GENIUS FORUMS

tharpa wrote:you still have not identified the nature of the 'glue'. What holds things together for a while? Of course one can keep repeating 'causes', but that is mainly a mechanistic or definitional (i.e. abstract) term which also explains why things fall apart at the same time.

Time is the 'glue' that holds all events together. Time causes the events of one moment to be quite proximal to the next moment. In this way, every cell of what you are and every dimension of who you are will remain connected to the prior and post moments.

BTW, Einstein was wrong. Time is a static - it can not "go slower" as something increases to the speed of light. Even if they measured time with an atomic clock and sent it fast enough that when it came back, it showed a different time than the matching one on the ground, all that was proven is that adequate speed can exert sufficient force to even slow the movements of an atom. If your watch stops, you know that does not mean that time has stood still. Similarly, if they sent a living being at a similar speed and noted a lack of aging, again, it would only indicate that sufficient speed can slow the mechanics of life. Perhaps sufficient speed can slow the effects of time, but it can not slow time itself.

Elizabeth: time doesn't exist any more than location except in relative terms. As such, it is subjective in the sense that the duration of a minute is perceived differently in different states of mind. If you are being tortured, a minute is a lifetime and so forth.

In contemplating the posts from the thread of late, I find myself interested in the notion of culture, which also relates to the term 'zhong chi' in the old daoist systems, clunkily translated as 'ancestral chi'.

There seems to be no contributor on this thread who disputes the basic tenet of cause and effect, one of whose conclusions is that no one thing has solid, independent existence because all 'things' are interdependent. Another way of putting this is that all selves exist in mutual dependence upon/with all 'others'., which gives us some sense of what realm means outside the purely psychological, in that the outer characteristics of a culture/environment/town etc. reflect the view and motivations of its inhabitants and vice versa.

At the beginning of this thread, I believe, there were some discussions about whether or not the 'force' of gravity could be discovered in the form of a particle, a graviton, and from there I predicted (playfully) that no 'mentron' will ever be discovered because the prime element in mind is that of space, or absence of location and shape, density, duration etc. etc.

But one could say just as gravity does not exist as a force per se but rather is the result of how objects with densities and mass interact in the overall continuum, so also we could say that culture, or 'realms', are the result of how beings interact with each other.

So although there is no such thing as gravity per se, or a being, or culture, nevertheless clearly there is. There may be no time either ultimately speaking, but clocks can still be made and keep the same time all over the world, i.e. the duration of a second.

The concept of chi in the daoist system is similar to gravity in the physical one in that it both exists definitely and yet does not exist because it is something always that is always in relationship. It is, if you like, the energy thrown off by two poles , such as yin-yang in abstract terms, or body-mind in more human organism terms etc.

Cultural qi, or Zhong qi, which is listed as one of the causes of birth and character in the old daoist explanations, is the same: it is a recognisable force or energy yet one that exists only as an expression of the relationships of those who comprise such 'culture'.

One of things separating the human men from the animal boys, so to speak, is awareness of these intangible but all-pervasive elements in the experience of being a being, and moreover a shared realm of beings.

Such forces, like the proverbial river are first taken for granted as real, then perceived by wiser ones as unreal, but lastly must be worked with as very real indeed, for no matter who we are, including the most strictly observant solitary hermit alone for years, we exist within multiple cultural containers/mandalas/chis the forces of which, like gravity, function in inexorable, dependable, cause-based ways even if, like time, they have no ultimately measurable physical quanta.

In fact, perceiving the inter-related simultaneity of emptiness and form and the resultant super-reality of things as they are, tuning into the solidity, if you will, of these all pervasive intangible qualities, is the same experientially and fundamentally as explaining things in the more literal and linear fashion using the metaphor of cause and effect. The underlying insight behind the notion of 'cause' or 'effect' (same difference) is in fact that all 'things' in place & time are in fact interdependents, just like gravity exists only in the relationship of various masses but not in and of itself without them.

This is why at some point dealing with noumena, especially qualititive ones such as 'culture', 'realms', colours, styles, speech and so forth becomes the main focus for those wishing to penetrate into the workings of how cause and effect play out in reality, not unlike how a scientist experiments which different types of mass in order to study the resultant 'energy' known as gravity. Real objects must be handled in a real laboratory at some point to verify any larger theories about the properties and 'rules' of how gravity functions. Similarly, actual human experience becomes what is brought into an laboratory studying enlightenment, or better 'producing/engendering' it as a spiritual development of sorts. At this point rather than studying the theoretical aspects (such as law of karma etc.) we have to bring in to this laboratory the actual experiences we have as humans, which in this case tend to be those that go along more with the realm-style descriptions, much like theatrical dramas or novels really and therefore relating to ordinary real-life type scale and content, rather than abstract theories about them.

tharpa wrote:Elizabeth: time doesn't exist any more than location except in relative terms.

Tharpa, you asked for the "glue" which holds all things together. "Glue" is a relative thing. You asked for a relative thing, and Elizabeth gave you a relative thing, so you got exactly what you asked for.

well, I didn't mean to ask for a 'thing' any more than I expect someone to find a 'timetron' or 'mentron'. I think I addressed the sort of 'thing' I was looking for in my reply. The word 'glue' I took to be essentially metaphoric in any case, and came up in terms of discussing continuity, which I later characterised as being closer to a story, experientially speaking, than an abstract theory or logic, like the law of karma.

In any case, time would most certainly not be the glue that binds things together to create a specifically human being versus a teacup. Far too abstract / general, like saying 'cause and effect' all the time regarding anything although in this case, time is just another one of those 'things' that is similarly part of that C&E dynamic, although in this case it is mainly a mental 'thing' some might say.

I think the realms proposition does a better job of explaining 'the glue' that ties sentient beings karmically to a seemingly continuous experience within each birth to death journey, since it includes territory, ignorance, wisdom, emotion, not to mention time (journeying). They include both interdependence (emptiness) with experience (appearance/form) in a way that does not require anything other than our everyday level of perception to contemplate.

Here's a western Loppon who doesn't think much of the Tib tulku system as it is today:

"The system as it stands now caters to favoritism and political manipulation. As such, it depends on the unquestioning faith of Tibetans.

Some monks once asked Khyentse Wangpo to find their teacher-- he found a suitable young boy, enthroned him, and so on. But still the monks of this monasteries had doubts-- so Khyentse Wangop said, "You really want to know who the tulku of your Lama is? Come with me-- and walked around to the back of their monastey and called out the name of their Lama...a young yak calf came running up..."

Here's an article on rebirth etc. emphasising the continuity aspect which I have been toying with:
Link

I have never read this chap before tonight and don't necessarily go along with everything he says, but he is well educated clearly and brings up some of the main issues around the karma and rebirth topic. I especially liked his handling of the different notions of continuum in various schools (that is in an intro to tantra talk from the same site but it also goes over the rebirth issue in a way v. similar to this linked talk), and the beginninglessness issue, also why the cause for a mental continuum cannot just be physical stuff alone.

In any case, one does not have to agree with something (or disagree) to find it worth reading. He covers some good issues in this short presentation of the topic.

From the link in your post:

. . . why did I become interested in yoga as a child? Nobody in my family or in the society around me was.

The above quote is on a par with the most idiotic things I have ever heard.

This fellow is following the standard Tibetan Buddhist line that there is some explanation other than ordinary everyday cause and effect to explain his interest in yoga.

This fellow is living in utter darkness.

I have heard this kind of argument so many times from Tibetan Buddhists it's not funny.

Another appalling fallacy they like to repeat is that different children in the same family all have different personalities and interests - and how on earth could that be, since they are all brought up in the same environment, with the same parents? . . . It can only be explained by some magical, spiritual thing . . . reincarnation!

Yet anyone with an IQ of slightly better than a moron knows that different children in the same family are brought up in different environments. There is only one eldest child, and they don't have any older sibilings, whereas the yougest doesn't have any younger siblings. The youngest has the most elder siblings, and the eldest has the most younger siblings. etc. It is also known that parents treat children differently depending on whether they are the eldest, or the baby of the family (the youngest), or the middle child. All these things are very well known, even by readers of "Women's Weekly" . . . but these things are not known at all by Tibetan Buddhists, who are still looking for magical explanations for things that have mundane, ordinary causes.

It is akin to the Christian's "God of the gaps". They invent a magical God to help explain anything they do not currently understand. That is exactly the case with reincarnation too. That is, the false understanding of reincarnation is invented to try and fill gaps in understanding.

And a lot of the time, those gaps in understanding are there because people don't want to understand. They prefer their magical, imaginary world.

tharpa wrote:Here's a western Loppon who doesn't think much of the Tib tulku system as it is today:

"The system as it stands now caters to favoritism and political manipulation. As such, it depends on the unquestioning faith of Tibetans."

These are valid reasons to oppose the tulku system, but they're not the most important reasons.

Here's an article on rebirth etc. emphasising the continuity aspect which I have been toying with:
Link

Unfortunately the "continuity" discussed in the article is only the kind of continuity I described in Fig. 1 - the linear, contrived variety. It doesn't discuss real reincarnation.

. . . why the cause for a mental continuum cannot just be physical stuff alone.

You are always talking about the "physical" as though it were something lesser. This has been pointed out to you before. To me, that is blasphemy.

All physical things are finite things, and finite things make up the body of the Infinite, the body of God - the Dharmakaya. Physical things are purely spiritual things. So the way you and Tibetan Buddhists talk about the physical, in a disparaging and discriminatory way, is not right.

Repeating the above quote:

. . . why the cause for a mental continuum cannot just be physical stuff alone.

Assuming that "physical stuff" means "finite things" then this comment is so misinformed it is really completely meaningless. Every cause is also necessarily a finite thing, so the causes for a mental continuum are finite things alone. (Finite things making up the Totality)

He covers some good issues in this short presentation of the topic.

Unfortunately the ideas he presents are not his own, but are 99% scripted - and the script is faulty.

Kevin Solway wrote:Yet anyone with an IQ of slightly better than a moron knows that different children in the same family are brought up in different environments. There is only one eldest child, and they don't have any older sibilings, whereas the yougest doesn't have any younger siblings. The youngest has the most elder siblings, and the eldest has the most younger siblings. etc. It is also known that parents treat children differently depending on whether they are the eldest, or the baby of the family (the youngest), or the middle child. All these things are very well known, even by readers of "Women's Weekly" . . . but these things are not known at all by Tibetan Buddhists, who are still looking for magical explanations for things that have mundane, ordinary causes.

Adding to what you said, I have spoken with good parents, and they admit that they do not treat all of their children the same, and that it is not appropriate to do so. One might only be punished with a scolding whereas another is given a more severe punishment for the same infraction because the first child will "get it" with just a scolding, whereas the other child wouldn't learn anything unless his favorite toy was taken away for the rest of the day.

The different treatment constitutes a different environment, but the internal environment is also different. Just because children may have the same parents does not mean they got all of the same genes - and just as some may be boys and others girls, some with brown eyes, others with blue, any genes that go into personality foundations could also be varied. Then there are nutritional differences, and differences in conditions during fetal development - even with twins, uterine conditions may be slightly different between one and the other.

Just by not occupying exactly the same space means they were not in exactly the same environment. Beyond just not having the same friends or classmates, just by standing at a different angle might cause something to capture the attention of one that another might not even notice. All these things contribute to the environments being different, even within the same family.

Kevin wrote:
You are always talking about the "physical" as though it were something lesser. This has been pointed out to you before. To me, that is blasphemy.

All physical things are finite things, and finite things make up the body of the Infinite, the body of God - the Dharmakaya. Physical things are purely spiritual things. So the way you and Tibetan Buddhists talk about the physical, in a disparaging and discriminatory way, is not right.

Quote from tharpa:
". . . why the cause for a mental continuum cannot just be physical stuff alone."

Assuming that "physical stuff" means "finite things" then this comment is so misinformed it is really completely meaningless. Every cause is also necessarily a finite thing, so the causes for a mental continuum are finite things alone. (Finite things making up the Totality) "

Now that's a good and interesting point and well made to boot.

First, I agree that mental things are essentially physical. However, I disagree with the contemporary, or common, view that the mind is a product of biological functions only, as in the current believe that we evolved from electrified mud which grew feelers and other senses progressively up to the current point in biological capabilities.

That said, however, there are essential differences in different types of physical 'stuffs', just like water, earth, fire and air behave in different, discernible ways. The territory navigated through with the mental/consciousness thingies has discernible differences from that navigated through with the more solidly physical thingies even though essentially these differences are only one of degree.

Just as certain dense ('biological') elements are passed on through egg, sperm, genes and so on, so also certain 'mental' elements are passed on through a more subtle (though yes still ultimately 'physical') medium. Just as we cannot see the mind nor find a location for it, so also we can not see the location for this mind/consciousness continuum which is evident from the moment a baby is born - and no doubt earlier could be witness the goings on inside the womb. There is more than literal environmental factors - such as the different way parents treat their children.

For example, what about orphans? Here, you would argue that they have yet another set of circumstances. But nevertheless, the basic character they bring to the situation will effect how they respond to whatever experiences they meet in life, and two different individuals will respond differently to the same thing, for example one liking strawberry ice cream and the other not liking it, only chocolate ice cream.

In other words, it is purely a causation-based proposition that 'reincarnation' exists and the underlying process described is simply saying that just that all elements that comprise a 'being' are dependent upon causes and conditions. You would find it very strange if anyone said that babies just spring up from nowhere: we know there is egg, sperm, womb, food, air, etc. etc. involved. Well, there is also the consciousness element therein which has much to do with the underlying thrust of the birth, the realm that person is incarnating into and thereby helping to create further by participating in it. There are causes which determine why a particular 'mindstream' aspect of the causes, evident at birth again, ends up in one particular birth versus another particular birth.

In fact, it is simply BECAUSE the consciousness aspect is no less 'physical' or real in the materialist sense and therefore no less the result of the law of cause and effect that reincarnation makes sense. That there are overly simplistic, including absurd, interpretations of the implications of such a term is unavoidable. But no less unavoidable than the overly simplistic and absurd interpretations about the causes and nature of biological organisms using materialist assumptions alone.

You seem to be arguing that everything arises from causes and conditions except mind and consciousness, or if not, that mind and consciousness are only caused by intra-biological factors, i.e. grown by each body. However, we also know that each body is itself dependent upon zillions of causes extraneous to itself and as such not truly existent. We cannot yet explain how DNA is formed from one being to another and the explanation that 'god wills it that way' is as good as anything provided by science even if thoroughly unscientific. We have no scientific explanation - as yet - for the remarkably stability shown by extremely complex interdependent constructions, including plants, mammals, insects, even weather systems. The reincarnation proposition is really not all that extraordinary at all, and simply follows the basic premise that everything arises from causes and conditions, including any new birth.

It is when examining the realms aspect of this topic that things get far more interesting, and provocative. But since you have decided that the internal psychological state of a human being is unrelated to the external realm in which it lives interdepently, and therefore that mind is something that exists only in someone's head, seated in the brain, in fact you are taking the extreme view that mind is interdependently caused only by factors within an individual body, and that any sense that is is caused by 'external' factors constitutes a 'belief in magic'. And yet I would say that any belief that any aspect of an individual being, mind or body, is self-engendered constitutes a form of magic-based superstition. And so it goes, forever and ever!

Finally, one of the key 'elements' in the mind/consciousness capability is that of awareness, which itself is linked to the non-local non-temporal aspects of any continuum. Although all particles of matter, including every one in a 'physical' body or similarly linked/inseparable, they do not have the faculty of awareness per se, just as a rock is not 'aware' in the same way that a sentient being is. This non-local element of the mental capability explains also why, in terms of rebirth, it is hard to see the continuity from one moment to the next compared to the progressions of the physical organism, whose properties are more easily discernible to our senses. So the awareness aspect of mind is that which tunes into the space principle far more than say, one's belly or big toe - though Naropa would take issue with that last point!

tharpa wrote:I disagree with the contemporary, or common, view that the mind is a product of biological functions only

I don't know anyone who thinks that mind is a product of biological functions only.

Firstly, biological life, and mind, evolved from non-biological things.

Secondly, take the case of a middle-child, who is treated differently to the youngest and eldest child in the family, and this has an effect on the development of their mind. Is this cause biological or non-biological? I would say non-biological.

What about education? Is that biological or non-biological? I would say non-biological.

And it is well known that things like climate can influence the development of mind, or chemicals in the environment. All these things are non-biological.

And virtually everyone knows these things, even if they're not very well educated.

as in the current believe that we evolved from electrified mud which grew feelers and other senses progressively up to the current point in biological capabilities.

The mud we evolved from was not biological, if it was not living.

There is more than literal environmental factors - such as the different way parents treat their children.

Give me an example of a causal factor that is not environmental.

For example, what about orphans? Here, you would argue that they have yet another set of circumstances. But nevertheless, the basic character they bring to the situation will effect how they respond to whatever experiences they meet in life, and two different individuals will respond differently to the same thing, for example one liking strawberry ice cream and the other not liking it, only chocolate ice cream.

Certainly. All these things are ordinary everyday causal factors.

You seem to be arguing that everything arises from causes and conditions except mind and consciousness, or if not, that mind and consciousness are only caused by intra-biological factors, i.e. grown by each body.

I don't know where you get that idea.

You will remember that I said that all things are a creation of mind, so I certainly don't believe that things arise from causes other than mind.

Also, the previous mind is obviously one of the causes of the current mind.

It is also common knowledge that mind is caused by a great many factors other than the purely biological. This has been dealt with at the beginning of this message.

We cannot yet explain how DNA is formed from one being to another

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean how DNA mutates and changes?

We have a very good idea how that happens. There are errors in the copying process of the strings of nucleotides in DNA. That's how DNA changes. If the resulting lifeform survives and passes on its genes, then the new, changed DNA is replicated.

We have no scientific explanation - as yet - for the remarkably stability shown by extremely complex interdependent constructions, including plants, mammals, insects, even weather systems.

None of these things are "remarkably stable". Virtually all the species that have ever existed on earth have already gone extinct. And weather systems are notoriously unstable. At the present time our world may be undergoing large changes in weather patterns, and that will result in a large number of extinctions.

What stabillty that we do experience is easily explained by science.

But since you have decided that the internal psychological state of a human being is unrelated to the external realm

I do not hold that position. Mind itself evolved from the rest of Nature, and once mind is formed, the rest of Nature feeds it and sustains it in the same way that a fountain is sustained by the water which makes up its body. For example, education feeds into the mind and changes it.

Kevin,

thanks for a stimulating thread.

With the last two posts, I have lost track of the discussion, especially with your latest reply. They sort of make sense and certainly do a good job of refuting my points, but mainly by misunderstanding their intent and getting caught up in semantics, so once again there is a circular feeling to the discussion.

Also, you ignore most of the things I bring in on my end that seem most germane and move the discussion along, instead bringing things back to your more scientific-style logics which are not my view of the subject matter you initially proposed. I have tried to enter that logical/scientific domain a few times - mainly for the purposes of learning - but it seems played out at this point. Certainly it is clear that you don't understand what I am saying, but that is fine.

Personally, I have not read anything here to indicate that there is no such thing as reincarnation or various realms and inhabitants therein, nor that only your view of the subject matter is valid, and indeed I find your logic-based speculations far too linear, shallow, abstract, formulaic and mechanistic in a way that does not accord with personal experience of everyday life - and for me the latter is the base subject matter.

Whether you are 'right' or not doesn't really matter since ultimately we each have our own view and life to lead. To those who see the outer world as real, ego is real, and to deny such reality is merely word gaming. To those for whom the outer world is not so solid, nor the self, to deny such perception would no less be word gaming. I see evidence of the realms in every interaction I have all the time and they have been a useful source of contemplation and analysis ever since I first stumbled into them over thirty years ago. There is no simple logic or argument I could read that would take that perception/view away at this point if for no other reason than it's simply far too informative. If it doesn't work for you, then it isn't dharma and that's fine too. There are no end of teachings for people with no end of different styles of view, just as there are many different levels of teaching in the buddhist system for the same reason. There is no one right view or definition of 'truth'.

tharpa wrote: . . . getting caught up in semantics, so once again there is a circular feeling to the discussion.

I think I know where you would like the discussion to go . . . you would like us to discuss primarily psychological causes of mind, which are what all the realms of existence are about, rather than non-psychological causes.

My point is that the distinction between the psychological and non-psychological is not so easily drawn.

For example, the psychological is a product of the non-psychological.

All the realms of existence are caused by something other than all the realms of existence.

I am always interested in the big picture, at the same time as not overlooking the details.

I see evidence of the realms in every interaction I have all the time and they have been a useful source of contemplation and analysis ever since I first stumbled into them

Personally, I think whoever created the idea of all the realms of existence, and explicated them, was a magnificent genius - much greater than Freud, etc.

But these realms, ie psychology, has to be seen in its right context.

That is, these psychological causes are normal causes just the same as any other causes.

It is by no magic that the middle child turns out different to the eldest and youngest. Nor is it magic that if one child is singled out for a daily beating by the parents, they will turn out differently to the other children.

Right there is where the realms of existence (psychology) have their proper application.

The violent parents, who probably exist in the hell realms, are creating a hellish environment for the child whom they are subjecting to daily beatings. And so we see clearly how a hell-realm being stays in hell for one life after another. The child is the reincarnation of the parent.

That is the value of the realms of existence.

"I think I know where you would like the discussion to go . . . you would like us to discuss primarily psychological causes of mind, which are what all the realms of existence are about, rather than non-psychological causes. "

No, I am interested in realms as a living study in how interdependent causality functions on the level of human experience. I have never studied psychology and am unfamiliar with all its vocabularies and assumptions.

Although I have no quarrel at all with the idea that child that is beaten frequently will develop differently from a sibling who wasn't (come to think of it, I know about this from personal childhood!), I am more interested in the underlying nature and characteristics and how it relates to its world. Each child would respond differently to the same treatment, some becoming stronger because of it, others becoming weak and neurotic, so they bring their own make-up (or realmic styles and tendencies) to the party.

Or: the interest is more subtle and playful. Different landscapes, car designs, sentence structure, imagery, lip shapes, body movements, tones of voice, story lines, hairstyles, cultures, body shapes, density of body or mind, sophistication or obscuration of body or mind, and so forth. (what is it about the shape of a woman's calf that makes it attractive - or not - to a man? etc.) I guess you could say I am interested in language, or qualities even, more than conclusions. Something like that. The realms I have always found interesting/pithy because there is clearly an ongoing relationship between the realm and inhabitant, not to mention in group dynamics, societies, cultures etc. Both create each other.

Another idea from buddhism I find fascinating in this type of way is samsara - and of course the six realm beings are those who dwell samsarically and thus create such 'samsara'. But essentially it's the same notion as the realms.

These two have been of more interest to me than anything else, and neither of them were subjects I studied when training with a teacher, mainly because they were so basic and have been covered often elsewhere. But they are the main two I enjoy contemplating all the time, day after day one way or another. So to me the idea of regarding the realms as solely internal (i.e. psychological) doesn't work. If it works for you, fine. I have never seen any description of them in buddhist sources which insists it is one not the other, and nearly all say it is most helpful to view them as various states of mind experienced by humans, contrary to some of your assertions about the tradition. But that is just a small point in the larger scheme of things.

tharpa wrote:. . . what is it about the shape of a woman's calf that makes it attractive - or not - to a man?

If you are truly interested in the such matters then you should become a scientist and find out. The reason is almost certainly biological.

It is probably for the same kind of reason that humans and monkeys are attracted to backsides or bosoms.

Personally, I find such things interesting, but ultimately a distraction from what is really important.

So to me the idea of regarding the realms as solely internal (i.e. psychological) doesn't work.

I can't see any other possible way they could be meaningful.

Of course they are not purely "internal", as in the example I gave in my last post, where the hell-realm parent became reborn in their hell-realm chlid.

The internal has an effect on the external.

"If you are truly interested in the such matters then you should become a scientist and find out. The reason is almost certainly biological. "

Disagree. Not the domain of scientists at all. The last place I would go, and hence the great difference in our approach to this topic!

There are styles that go along with passionate, aggressive or ignorant realmic states - shapes, textures, and so forth. I would say, as I have been trying to all along, that the biological comes from such realms/states, not the other way around.

Such karmic motivations and so forth literally create the realms in which we live and they in turn mirror back those motivations in outer forms, including the biological.

I was trying to find a buddhist text I used to have that articulated the various reasons behind each animal etc. but could not. In any case, I like to think these things through for myself.

But that said: what is it about curves, softness, vigor, sweetness, friendliness, devotion, beauty and so forth that is so well expressed by the turn of a particular female calf (from the male point of view of course)? The position of eyes, lips, ears, their proportions, the relation between mind and body, harmony and disharmony expressed in certain configurations and so forth. Each says so much, and immediately, yet where does such language come from, what is its alphabet and grammar. You might say it is biological and scientific, but I find it is better explained in the cosmological metaphor of the 'six realms of the desire realm', which are essentially mind-karma created.

Personally, I am fascinated by picking up on the language, the symbology, of everything all around. I guess that is why I ended up in a mahamudra lineage.

There is nothing wrong with science. But contemporary science has embraced a view that presupposes that reality is essentially a physical, or mechanical, process, or rather impersonal, objective, not subjective. In other words, the universe is dead and our sense that it is alive is just a mechanical trick provided by superior cognitive functions, such as your 'memory' and so forth.

Sorry, don't buy it. Science will never be able to explain the particular magic exhibited in my wood fireplace every night as I watch the flames curling, flowing, glowing, radiating.

You might think there's some subtle reason why men are attracted to women. But in reality men are attracted to women because that is the way our DNA is replicated.

Anything else is all very nice imaginings.

Failure to see the truth of the matter is what keeps people trapped in samsara, pondering over women's ankles.

Kevin Solway wrote:You might think there's some subtle reason why men are attracted to women. But in reality men are attracted to women because that is the way our DNA is replicated.

Anything else is all very nice imaginings.

Failure to see the truth of the matter is what keeps people trapped in samsara, pondering over women's ankles.

Well, last first: calves etc. was just an example of how the realms come into daily contemplation of whys, wherefores and most importantantly whats, i.e. what are the real qualities here? What is being perceived in that calf that passion, pleasure ec. can be stimulated? Also, you guys go on about femininity etc. quite a bit, so you haven't transcended the topic!!

Another example might have been: what is it about the worst-managed show-trial in human history (because it was never shown, either the trial or the execution) makes a little snippet so fascinating to so many that one little nine-year old in Pakistan hung himself yesterday?

Now on to the first bit:

"You might think there's some subtle reason why men are attracted to women. But in reality men are attracted to women because that is the way our DNA is replicated.

Anything else is all very nice imaginings."

It is funny. I was thinking a little about this thread before retiring and on awakening and realised that I had not articulated something I had thought long ago; got lost in the back-and-forths no doubt. It was triggered by your suggestion last night that to understand passion in the human realm, I should go to a biologist or somebody who studies apes etc.

Well, according to the material I studied long ago, and to which I still occasionally refer, one of the main qualities or drives of the human realm is passion, whereas one of the main qualities of the animal realm is an absence of such human-style passion, absence of humour and being bound by their genetic make-up far more than is the case with a human.

We have our limitations. Most of us cannot fly, for example, and few of us can speak foreign languages without study, but unlike animals we can build flying contraptions and we can study foreign languages. Our hands and arms can move in no end of artistically expressive ways, our wondrous tales to tell. And we do love telling stories, don't we? Even hard-boilded scientists followed Darwin down the myth-making trail bent on conquering rigidly institutionised animal-realm dogma and taboos which had stifled Europe for far too long by putting in its place another no less superstitious, dogmatic fable, that of evolution, and one that is far more animal-realm in form and content than the one it overcame.

The modern world, as it has been 'progressing', has been systematically breaking down that which was most human realm and building up a new type of animal realm in which productivity and compliance are respected far more than heart, artistry, or genuine contribution to immediate community. Most of the instituations of higher learning are animal realm shams, where people of like limitation cluster together, assiduously training their young to adopt the same flawed supersitions, meanwhile - and not coincidentally - making sure to protect their stream of income and social status as 'experts'. There are no end of 'expert' op-ed writers in the international press now who know absolutely nothing of which they pontificate, either because they never studied and went to Middle Eastern countries and cultures, for example, or because even if they did they are stuck on a US army base hobnobbing with the soldiers, many of whom themselves deal with supply, not front-line ops etc. So here again we have ignorance (animal realm) masquerading as intelligence.

The animal realm is extremely sophisticated. It can build cars and rocket ships, just like it produces the altogether both marvellous and useless peacock's tail.

During the Great Depression in America (for example), all men and women continued to wear hats throughout, a sign of basic human dignity, that we are not just beasts scratching for survival, maintaining territory, but we are humans who live 'twixt heaven and earth, comprising both, aware of both, with abilities, aspirations, dreams, a great need for learning, communication, culture, contemplation and so forth.

That is why I say there is far more to the human realm than abstract formula alone, rules such as cause and effect. Indeed, the Buddha was the consummate human: he broke those rules and transcended karma, or if that is regarded as sacriledge (as it is in some schools) he most certainly transcended all lower and higher realm tendencies. He confronted the limitations of the life form (birth, death etc.) and found a way around them. That is the main 'truth' he discovered, that there is a path to liberation, not the many didactic 'rules' or 'laws' he stated to help people still in chains see that they were chains.

However, he also pointed out that once the boat (of a particular teaching) has taken you to the other shore, you abandon it and move on. The main thrust of the teaching of cause and effect is to show that our imprisonment in animal realm behaviour is illusory.

Well, I am rambling now. The main point is that going to animal realm type authorities to understand the nature of human realm type passion and creativity is not necessarily the best way to go! The entire DNA theory of human nature is quintessential animal realm thinking, in other words, that our behaviour as humans is governed by chemical processes, that our minds are essentially the output of various chemical processes, that we are all Mother Nature's little Frankensteins, cooked up in her cosmic test tube.

No! We have created nature in some sense, as inhabitants create all the realms in which they dwell. We fashion and shape realities as a sculptor fashions medusas or angels out of clay.

A babboon has very little control: when he or she sees those inflamed balloon-like genitals bobbing in the bushes, off he or she goes, ruts, and is done. Humans, however, can be much more artful and discriminating, judging various calves, ankles, movements, speeches and so forth, playing with them, rejecting or accepting them, turning the whole thing into an art form and so forth.

In short: I would not go to a biologist or any other materialist scientist to better understand any of these things. I would go to them to help build better bridges and so forth. But not to appreciate - let alone celebrate - human nature and culture.

tharpa wrote:Well, according to the material I studied long ago, and to which I still occasionally refer, one of the main qualities or drives of the human realm is passion

Note that you are here talking about "the human realm", which is not the same as "human beings". Very few human beings are in the human realm, perhaps only one in every ten million.

Most human beings are in the lower realms (hells, animals, etc).

Every once in a while a person in the animal realms might have a micro-second intuition that might be human, but that's normally all it is. It's not enough to save them from the lower realms.

Most of the instituations of higher learning are animal realm shams

Here I will agree with you. I think Universities are at their lowest ebb in a long time - especially in America with all their so-called "Christian Universities".

That is why I say there is far more to the human realm than abstract formula alone, rules such as cause and effect.

I don't see cause and effect as an abstract formula.
Rather, it is the actual functioning of Nature. It is a seed growing into a oak tree, a child growing into an adult, the evolution of life on earth, etc.

The entire DNA theory of human nature is quintessential animal realm thinking

It all depends on the context. If it is stated by an enlightened person, then it is enlightened thinking.

For example, a Buddha and an animal-realm being can both say "causes have effects", but they will mean completely different things by those words.

In short: I would not go to a biologist or any other materialist scientist

I think you have a wrong conception of science. Science is not necessarily what you call "materialist".

For example, a Buddha can be a scientist, and it would not make him a materialist.

Kevin Solway wrote:

tharpa wrote:Well, according to the material I studied long ago, and to which I still occasionally refer, one of the main qualities or drives of the human realm is passion

Note that you are here talking about "the human realm", which is not the same as "human beings". Very few human beings are in the human realm, perhaps only one in every ten million.

Most human beings are in the lower realms (hells, animals, etc).

Every once in a while a person in the animal realms might have a micro-second intuition that might be human, but that's normally all it is. It's not enough to save them from the lower realms.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as only one in ten million; it seems you are equating human realm with realisation, of which of course there are many levels. The human realm is still samsaric, not enlightened, although that's the best one for realisation because the human realm itself experiences change, oscillations, thanks to which it can pierce through the seeming solidity of the realms which appear far more solid and real to those outside the human realm since they oscillate far less.

The traditional analogy for the likelihood of being born a true human is like one in ten million indeed, but one in ten million beings in all the realms, not just the human. Then from amongst the humans, those who become fully realised number as many as the stars at daytime sort of thing.

If you compare how many human being bodies there are on the planet to insects alone, the proportion is far, far smaller and that is the way such comparisons are usually described and I think it makes sense. Since I have no problem with the realms being a more or less literal description of the distribution of sentient beings in the overall realm of desire, obviously I look at the human realm differently than you do with your emphasis on their a) being only psychological human being states and b) the human state within that being some sort of equivalent of realisation. This is not how I have ever seen the whole thing portrayed, so we are using similar vocabulary from one tradition but you have re-interpreted to mean something quite different, albeit with the same terms.

You could describe all the realms in terms of the dominant type of neurosis - to use a psych. term, wherein the human realm is the most fickle, desire-driven, discursive, unstable.

And again, each realm has all six within them, so they are very much like primary colours as I described pages ago. There are no end to sub-divisions within sub-divisions.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Most of the instituations of higher learning are animal realm shams

Here I will agree with you. I think Universities are at their lowest ebb in a long time - especially in America with all their so-called "Christian Universities".

That is why I say there is far more to the human realm than abstract formula alone, rules such as cause and effect.

I don't see cause and effect as an abstract formula.
Rather, it is the actual functioning of Nature. It is a seed growing into a oak tree, a child growing into an adult, the evolution of life on earth, etc.

The entire DNA theory of human nature is quintessential animal realm thinking

It all depends on the context. If it is stated by an enlightened person, then it is enlightened thinking.

For example, a Buddha and an animal-realm being can both say "causes have effects", but they will mean completely different things by those words.

In short: I would not go to a biologist or any other materialist scientist

I think you have a wrong conception of science. Science is not necessarily what you call "materialist".

For example, a Buddha can be a scientist, and it would not make him a materialist.

[/quote]
Good points. I have been generalising, of course, but generally speaking most scientists do fall into what I have termed 'the materialistic' camp in that they separate awareness and physical matter. This is just a modern form of theistic duality, or belief system used as an a pre-assumed priori, often without knowing it. That ignorance aspect is what makes it essentially animal realm. The whole notion of a mechanistic universe operating somewhat like a clock is also essentially animal in that this assumes that we only function within such laws of nature in a no less mechanistic, quasi predetermined fashion, just like an insect can only behave within the limitations of the DNA-programmed physical behaviours hard-wired into its modes of being. At least seemingly.

I might be wrong, but I suspect your resistance to regarding the realms as both outer and inner descriptions stems from also going along with this fundamental view of 'nature' as being some sort of constant rather that what it is: an interdependent creation of realms and their inhabitants.

If we stick to within the human realm paradigm only, we see this repeated again and again in the context of the rising, dwelling and decay of various cultures, during which period nature herself mirrors such cultures in many ways, in terms of spaciousness, beauty, ugliness, abundance, scarcity, balance, imbalance, reliability, turbulence and so forth.

tharpa wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Very few human beings are in the human realm, perhaps only one in every ten million.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as only one in ten million; it seems you are equating human realm with realisation

No, I'm only equating the human realm with having a modicum of intelligence, conscience, and character. Realization is much more rare than that.

I have only met a handful of exceptional people in my life who have what I would call basic humanity.

Human realm beings really are just as rare as they say they are in Buddhism. It's no exaggeration.

The traditional analogy for the likelihood of being born a true human is like one in ten million indeed, but one in ten million beings in all the realms, not just the human.

As you know, I hold that the realms of existence are only intended to speak of psychological realms in human beings. In other words, it is a psychology for human beings. A masterful and genius expression of psychology. It is meaningful precisely because we, as human beings, experience all the different realms, and can relate to them.

When you try to apply the realms in other ways, they become ridiculous.

For example, if we were to consider that the realms are not purely psychological, then we would expect to find "hungry ghosts" (pretas) literally flying around the place, or god-beings fighting each other in the sky with all sorts of magic. We do not experience such things. However we do experience those phenomena psychologically. We do experience people who are pretas psychologically. And that's why the realms are meaningful only psychologically.

Also, the descriptions of things like the hells are completely ridiculous if interpreted literally, but extremely meaningful if interpreted psychologically.

I could go on, but I think I've said enough on that matter.

generally speaking most scientists do fall into what I have termed 'the materialistic' camp in that they separate awareness and physical matter.

This is probably true of most scientists, as it is for most of any other group of people. But don't confuse scientists with science. There is nothing in the principles of science that say you have to think that things are inherently existent. If individual scientists choose to do so then that's a personal choice on their part, but it's nothing to do with science itself.

The whole notion of a mechanistic universe operating somewhat like a clock

Clocks are often maligned by people like yourself and the Tibetan Buddhists - which is blasphemy - because clocks are in fact 100% spiritual entities, just the same as all other beings. They have a birth, a death, and we don't know what is going to happen with them from one moment to the next. They are as infinitely complex and organic as anything else, and work in the same way that you or I do. Clockwork is just as magnificent a natural expression as is a tree or a waterfall.

Kevin, I am just on the point of retiring, so cannot reply ain any way to do your post justice except to say that I found it truly excellent - apart from yr irrepressible tendency to tar all 'Tibetan Buddhists' with the same brush! But - hey! - whatever turns you on!

Kevin Solway wrote:

tharpa wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Very few human beings are in the human realm, perhaps only one in every ten million.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as only one in ten million; it seems you are equating human realm with realisation

No, I'm only equating the human realm with having a modicum of intelligence, conscience, and character. Realization is much more rare than that.

I have only met a handful of exceptional people in my life who have what I would call basic humanity.

Human realm beings really are just as rare as they say they are in Buddhism. It's no exaggeration.

Well, in one sentence you define human realm has having only a 'modicum' of intelligence conscience and character and then in the next you talk of 'exceptional people' who have 'basic humanity'. I guess my definition of human realm includes far lower standards of entry, whereas you are talking of higher realm humans it seems to me and excluding hell realm humans.

Kevin Solway wrote:

The traditional analogy for the likelihood of being born a true human is like one in ten million indeed, but one in ten million beings in all the realms, not just the human.

As you know, I hold that the realms of existence are only intended to speak of psychological realms in human beings. In other words, it is a psychology for human beings. A masterful and genius expression of psychology. It is meaningful precisely because we, as human beings, experience all the different realms, and can relate to them.

When you try to apply the realms in other ways, they become ridiculous.

For example, if we were to consider that the realms are not purely psychological, then we would expect to find "hungry ghosts" (pretas) literally flying around the place, or god-beings fighting each other in the sky with all sorts of magic. We do not experience such things. However we do experience those phenomena psychologically. We do experience people who are pretas psychologically. And that's why the realms are meaningful only psychologically.

Also, the descriptions of things like the hells are completely ridiculous if interpreted literally, but extremely meaningful if interpreted psychologically.

I could go on, but I think I've said enough on that matter.

I will not say that I don't find certain expressions ridiculous if applied too literally, but I still feel there is some underlying veracity in the whole notion of actual beings incarnated in a variety of ways; or put another way: humans and animals, which we all see easily, are not necessarily the only sentient beings in the universe.

More fancifully speaking, I sometimes wonder if what we call 'stars' are not god realm beings, who live for millions of years longer than we do. Perhaps we see them as balls of light and gas, or perhaps we are seeing only certain lower frequencies of what are in fact more complete beings. Again, speaking fancifully. Similarly with hell realm beings, perhaps they live in highly condensed situations, perhaps even inside rocks and magma. Again, fancifully speaking.

Also, I strongly suspect that there could be multiple realities existing simultaneously in the quantum soup of interelated factors and that our one is something like a frequency on a radio station to which our minds and bodies are attuned so that for those on such frequency, things like solidity/mass and duration appear in a consistent fashion, but if one were to change the frequency dial b a few degrees, other 'parallel' universes would instantly reveal themselves, and in some of those frequencies there would be more hellish or god-realmish tendencies with beings and environments to match, albeit not looking like anything we see in our own frequency setting. Again, fancifully speaking.

Personally, of course, I mainly contemplate such stuff from within the perspective of my own experience, which means that I include both humans, animals and the occasional ghost in the mix, though I have met people who (say they) see no end of ghosts everywhere all the time. I cannot verify the latter one war or another so remain agnostic. I neither believe in ghosts, for example, nor disbelieve, and same with gods and hell realm beings. I don't see them so I don't think about them very much one way or another. However, I do see animals and I do feel they live in a world with rules that are the same as ours and that the six realm paradigm describes their condition excellently. That being the case, I don't subscribe to the view that the six realm notion applies only to psychological states of those with human bodies.

Kevin Solway wrote:

generally speaking most scientists do fall into what I have termed 'the materialistic' camp in that they separate awareness and physical matter.

This is probably true of most scientists, as it is for most of any other group of people. But don't confuse scientists with science. There is nothing in the principles of science that say you have to think that things are inherently existent. If individual scientists choose to do so then that's a personal choice on their part, but it's nothing to do with science itself.

I agree. However the word 'science' in the west is not usually used in that classic, bedrock sense.

Kevin Solway wrote:

The whole notion of a mechanistic universe operating somewhat like a clock

Clocks are often maligned by people like yourself and the Tibetan Buddhists - which is blasphemy - because clocks are in fact 100% spiritual entities, just the same as all other beings. They have a birth, a death, and we don't know what is going to happen with them from one moment to the next. They are as infinitely complex and organic as anything else, and work in the same way that you or I do. Clockwork is just as magnificent a natural expression as is a tree or a waterfall.

Well, that was an excellent praise of the worthy chronometer, and well expressed. I have nothing against the timepiece per se, rather the process of imposing a conceptual framework on reality. It can be extremely helpful, even accurate, but such accuracy comes with a price: by buying into one particular paradigm, view or framework, one closes off the co-existence of other different ones. And by this I don't mean any imagined realms as in the above paragraphs, but simply ways of living as humans. Something happens when we slice time into precisely pre-ordained slices, as if life proceeds along the same metronomic rhythm in perpetuity. This essentially conceptual framework allows us to organise ourselves efficiently, but also becomes a form of mutual enslavement in no ends of ways.

Now if we could make a clock that would adjust the time period (seconds, hours etc.) to reflect the continuously changing amount of daylight each twenty four hour period, and then factor in the influences of the moon and weather and then also adapted to various emotional states, factoring in the stress of financial loss, famine, battlefield conditions, falling in love, good harvests, celebrations and so forth, then it might get better in terms of being more accurate in relation to human nature.

So it is the tyranny, if you will, of artificial conceptual overlay which I object to. It is not a big beef, more like a fanciful quibble. But it's there nonetheless. In a way, I find it a form of animal realm type convention, you could say, to measure something as elastic as the perception of time and pretend that it has objective constants separate from the subjective, without which, of course, there would be no experience of time at all, since it is a dependent upon a being, i.e. it is a 'psychic/mental dharma' is is often rather clunkily translated.

A short excerpt that may express the Dalai Lama's view of reincarnation depending on how one understands his expression from: The Dalai Lama Looks Beyond Tibet

By Kenneth L. Woodward | Newsweek | August 16 , 1999

' If I pass away while still in exile , ' he says in conversation over tea in Dharmsala , ' then the next Dalai Lama will appear outside Tibet and the Tibetan community will choose him as my successor . That is clear .

The very purpose of the reincarnation is to fulfill the policies initiated but not accomplished in the previous Dalai Lama's life . '

But the metaphysics of reincarnation is less complicated than its politics . The Chinese have mocked the Dalai Lama by suggesting that he wants to be reincarnated as a ' blue-eyed Westerner '. The taunt evokes one of his infectious laughs.

' It is possible , ' he readily concedes . ' Next Dalai Lama could be Indian or European or African -- even a woman . Body doesn't matter . '

clyde wrote:The very purpose of the reincarnation is to fulfill the policies initiated but not accomplished in the previous Dalai Lama's life . '

The way he puts it sounds more like a fairytale to fulfill people's expectations, rather than anything else.

For example, Santa Clause comes once a year to fulfill the expecatations of little children.

Kevin;

Yes, of course, one could understand it that way. There are other ways to understand his statement and I believe you could view his statement in such a way that it would be consistent with your understanding of reality.

Do no harm,
clyde

This could go here. The Tibetan Book of the Dead - documentary at google video:

part 1
part 2