Re: Are Karma and Rebirth For Real?

14/10/2558
DharmaWheelViewtopicAreKarmaandRebirthReal?
ABuddhistdiscussionforumonMahayanaandVajrayanaBuddhism
Search
Search
Advancedsearch
Are Karma and Rebirth Real?

Forumrules
Postareply
Searchthistopic
Search
773postsPage11of391...8,9,10,11,12,13,14...39
Reportthispost(./report.php?f=66&p=63406)
Replywithquote(./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=63406)
Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63406)

bydeepbluehumFriOct28,20119:43pm
ronnewmexico wrote:
Read about this you will find it true. Two scientists just received great prizes
for this discovery though it occured several years ago.
The universe is rapidly expanding and accelerating.We are on a collision course
with another galaxy.
It is reasonably assumed concurrent with this now known acceleration that
eventually over time the forces which allow atoms to be atoms and remain as
such by certain forces will be overcome by the forces of disassociation(some
call dark matter) and themselves accelerate apart.
Dark matter concurrent with this known fact of acceleration compirses the
majority of energy in the universe by proportion..yet we cannot perceive it only
know of it by the movements of known objects(such as in the acceleration)
Nothing will sustain and remain that is certain.
All the buddhas words are proven true by science...it only remains to be
discovered.
Earth..forget the earth it will not sustain. Not a bit of it.
Study it read it yourself.
According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, there is no meaningful statement about

motion or velocity without reference to another object. Thus space itself, having no other
object to refer to, cannot be said to be expanding or accelerating. What might appear to be
an expansion, can also be understood as a spacetime dissolution or fading and the particles
contained therein have a mere appearances of dispersal in relation to one another, but with
respect to space itself (the vast expanse of space), there is no referent with respect to
location or distance. Space has no location, no center, no edge, so no size, shape, going or
coming. Sound familiar? The nature of mind and the nature of space are exactly identical.
Top

byAcchantikaFriOct28,201110:15pm
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678&start=200
1/12
14/10/2558
Dechen Norbu wrote:

Acchantika wrote:
I don't disagree with any of your sentiments. I'm just saying, it is not
skillful, in the modern age, to expect people to have faith in something
they can't directly measure with only the promise that they will
experience it later. Saying they are attached to denial and brainwashed
by whatever is not the way to reward enquiry. As long as this is not fully
appreciated, people who do cut and paste Dharma, specifically
removing these ideas for ease of access, will continue to have the kind
of appeal they currently do.
Hummm we have a lot of faith in things we can't measure and measurement

itself is a problem, but I get what you're saying.
I find wise to investigate the
teachings with an open mind and consider those we can't be sure right now as
working hypothesis. If we deem them as unimportant, we won't even look for
their accuracy and it will be our loss. It's usually helpful to put our own,
sometimes hidden, metaphysical predilections to the test. Many don't hold as
much water as we think they do prior to a good philosophic analysis. Learning
the rationale behind rebirth and karma and realizing that our own metaphysical
assumptions may stand on quick sands helps us gain perspective.
People can't force faith. Some don't seem to understand this fact. In "the old
days", faith came because people trusted in the learned and those were usually
the clergy. So if the clergy said it, it must be true. Those days are long gone for
some people, especially those who went through college. Anyway, faith can't be
forced, not upon ourselves, nor upon others. That is neither wise, nor ethical.
Some people accept the testimony of those they trust. If a student knows his
teacher well enough, he makes sense, and he learned the rationale behind
those more exotic teachings, confidence starts to build naturally. With further
study and practice comes a new mode of apprehension of reality, insight. The
problem with this knowledge is that although it can be replicated, it can't be
demonstrated to a 3rd party. So everyone who wishes to gain knowledge
through it, needs to undergo the proper training.
For sure, I very much agree. I am playing devil's advocate a bit, too. Of course, intellectual
inquiry is only a small and very fragile aspect. However, I think that in a intellectually driven
society moving beyond the normal contracted forms of perception is no small feat, and I still
think conviction can be developed in a number of ways. But I understand too what you said
before that it is disingenuous to not be fully transparent about what was actually taught. My
teacher told me once that there are no real secrets in Buddhism, there are just levels of
understanding. The first thing you tell a prospective buddhist is not, "you have no soul and all
your relationships are empty", even thought that is kinda true. You tell them that all
conditioned things are empty, and they kind of figure out the rest. So too, if they may have
an issue with rebirth/karma, you tell them everything is impermanent, and they will
naturally come to the conclusion of that. So I think you are right, as usual, that we should
find a middle way in these things, as usual.
Top
2/12
14/10/2558

deepbluehum wrote:
You should look at the work of the analytics (Wittgenstein's Philosophical
Investigations) to understand how 2+2 does not equal 4, depending on how the
assumptions (i.e., the representational structure) are described.
Wittgenstein's argument is with the relationship of language to objective reality. I was talking
about the structure of representational language as correlated to the structure of relational
thought, a correlation he depends on. The trivially true statement (2+2=4) is not the same as
(2 + 2 = 4 is true). Invoking Wittgenstein to restate the truism that language does not
represent reality, renders everything in this thread meaningless including your own posts.
The only way this line of thinking can be concluded is by you arguing that logic is arbitrary
and empiricism a mere accumulation of information. Since, you are organising concepts and
language to communicate, as well as using empiricial reasoning to submit posts, I am always
going to disagree with you. So we should probably just agree to disagree.
I hope you are not presuming Nagarjuna negated rebirth or took a skeptical
position that only the probable remains.
Nagarjuna negated all assertions, including rebirth exists.
The best you are going to be able to do through science, with respect to the
path itself, is show that science does not contradict the path.
Agreed.
Top

deepbluehum wrote:
Yep. That's the point. Science and Buddhism are opposites. Science relies on
objectivity, Buddhism on subjectivity.
3/12
14/10/2558
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge based on sensory information. Science is its

methodological application. In Buddhism, the mind that apprehends objects, such as a
memory of previous lives, is a sense. Ergo, Buddhist phenomenology is an empirical
argument, not its opposite.
I'm not saying the oppose each other. But undeniably, the two come from two
opposite perspectives, one from the point of view of material objectivity, and
the other from the point of view of deep subjectivity.
Science and Buddhism both only deal with phenomena, perceived events, not noumena,
objective events. A publicly observable phenomenon is not a noumenon.
The argument that empirical data approximates objective reality is called realism, and is not
the same as empiricism or science.
Top

gregkavarnos wrote:
Acchantika wrote:
I'm just saying, it is not skillful, in the modern age, to expect people to
have faith in something they can't directly measure with only the
promise that they will experience it later.
Later? What they are experiencing now is a consequence of rebirth based on the
outcomes of past action (karma). If seeing rebirth in action merely required
dying, we would have seen and personally verified it an infinite number of
times, given we have already lived and died a countless number of times.
I meant later as in recollections of past lives, not death.

Top

Acchantika wrote:
Wittgenstein's argument is with the relationship of language to objective
reality. I was talking about the structure of representational language as
correlated to the structure of relational thought, a correlation he depends on.
4/12
14/10/2558
The trivially true statement (2+2=4) is not the same as (2 + 2 = 4 is true).

Invoking Wittgenstein to restate the truism that language does not represent
reality, renders everything in this thread meaningless including your own posts.
The only way this line of thinking can be concluded is by you arguing that logic
is arbitrary and empiricism a mere accumulation of information. Since, you are
organising concepts and language to communicate, as well as using empiricial
reasoning to submit posts, I am always going to disagree with you. So we should
probably just agree to disagree.
This is an incorrect account of Wittengenstein's position. My point is that meaningfulness

depends on the representational structure, paradigm, context, world view, etc, which
depends on the purpose of the communication. His example of a boss ordering "Brick" comes
to mind. Two equally valid vantage points can render divergent courses of logic. Here we
have one that constructs a world from experiment and data. And one that utilizes
information innately present in the percipient. These two start points render different logics.
And negated rebirth doesn't exist. So what of that?

Lasteditedbydeepbluehum(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1300)onFriOct
28,201111:56pm,edited1timeintotal.
Top

Then he negates the existence of language, so?

Top

byThug4lyfeFriOct28,201111:51pm
Are you really an Acchantika?!!! You were mentioned on the Mahaparinirvana sutra!!! Can I
have your autograph?!!!
Top

byJosefSatOct29,201112:20am
5/12
14/10/2558
Acchantika wrote:
Rebirth doesnt exist. Its a relative phenomena.

Top

byedearlSatOct29,20111:27am
gregkavarnos wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
But as to DNA the fact it's a molecule does not account for how
consciousness is reborn from it.
Probably coz consciousness is not born from DNA?

...
Anyway, let's say that in your immediately previous life you were a
microbe. Can you even begin to imagine what a microbial memory
would be like? I mean they don't have the same senses as us and we
currently define our experience and memory via our senses (I felt this, I
saw that, I heard this, I tasted that...) So if, suddenly, a microbial
memory flashed up in your consciousness could you even possibly begin
to be able to define it as an experience (as you now "know" experience)
or a memory?
Evolution via natural selection adapts species to better survive in an ecological niche. An
ecological niche provides both positive and negative feedback to the species that cause it to
adapt. This process is analogous to a person receiving positive or negative feedback and
adapting (because one remembers the feedback) to either seek the positive feedback or
avoid the negative feedback. Thus; IMO species adaptation is, in essence, the species
remembering feedback from their ecological niche; however, this memory is unconscious.
That is how I imagine species memory, including microbial memory.
Top

byronnewmexicoSatOct29,20111:56am
DB....here is a link from wiki on the issue of a accelerating expanding

universe,,,,,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe)
Two scientists just received the nobel peace prize in realation to this. It was firstly observed
6/12
14/10/2558
in 1998 but has been now confirmed by various form.

Yes it does in some manner seem to contradict Einstein. The finding now of particles that
exceed the speed of light also thought by Einstein impossilbe offer contradictions as well.
It remains true neverthless the universe is accelerating away apart more and more
rapidly....fact as much as fact can be known. Dark matter has been theorized as causitive
factor but that is still theory.... not considered fact as it is not directly observable presently.
Around three billion years,some say seven or so, has some estimates on when we collide with
another galaxy. Some billion or so years later may be the point at which atoms actually start
to devolve apart is what I have heard, but I would guess that is very very far from known
being mainly conjuctural and varying significantly. 22 billion has been used in a theoretic
model of this.This is called the big rip.
Earth is done over finished just a matter of time. Impending galaxy collision being first.
Things continue as they do and in all likelyhood the theists or others of religion will declare it
verboton, in certain areas of the world by government to be known of... by my guess.
This simply devolves certain ways of thinking of things and is quite quite revolutionary in its
implications....imagine shortly a known time when we know with relative certainity the earth
all things in our universe will come apart. No going to another planet or galaxy none of
that....atoms pulled apart all.
Give it time but that time is upon us.
Not all but all constituted as we are of these particularly charged particles of matter...not
antimatter and their universes their galaxies if so they do exist, I'd guess.
Or places comprised of other matter perhaps like dark matter unknown by us as we cannot
perceive it.
Space we assume empty but it is not by my take. If force energy may be perceived we may
not call such a thing empty.the force of the expansion dark matter or not indicates a
presence of a thing. That thing exerting things apart. If somewhere in space is any object
that space is not empty.
We may perceive it as empty as we if we could survive such a expansion could view that place
we would see nothing else at all...but our perceptive ability is very limited, in all likelyhood
dark matter will constitute empty space, empty to us as in nonperceivable but filled to the
brim with it. dark energy, hence not empty. Lack of ability to perceive a thing does not infer
it is not there.
In a conceptual format I agree with the similiarities of these things mentioned.
We are a microcosom of things as we must be, I see that as buddhist thought but keep in mind
this is only of things of our sort we are this microvision.
Dark matter energy we are not of these things but affected by these. Perhaps antimatter is
the same.
Space it is not that is expanding. Universe it is that is expanding and accelerating, this
measured by the relative positions of galaxies one to another.
Universe I would personally call...what is known or reasonably theorized to exist as
form/energy.
Space then considered all or that in which a universe may reside. A perhaps conceptual issue
only as energy may be all, just we perceive it as this and that.
But conceptually it enables us to pursue a thing such as measurement of a universe.
Comparing perhaps we are only known energy to unknown energy perceived as empty...again
to my opinion all filled to the brim, so all measurable by relationship of gradients of energy.
It is true there is not a place to be ultimately, but also true is that relationship of energy
indicates or relates to us as acceleration or deceleration, in a scale of observation. That
things are perceived empty does not indicate they may not accelerate nor decelerate. A
atom for instance my indicate a frame of reference by which a thing may be ascertained to
7/12
14/10/2558
be in relationship to. It does all remain relative as all is measured, and but measurement...
but that does not infer acceleration in this relative fashion is not occuring.
In a ultimate fashion filled to the brim is space with all by that necessity relationship. But
filled to the brim things of varying contribution may have within that filling, individual items
moving apart or closer to in a accelerating fashion.
It is true this is all relative to what we know to be there. Space is a lake of ultimate
demensions of which we the fish see only other fish and not the prime mover the water. So it
is not space as we think it.
Lasteditedbyronnewmexico(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=222)onSat
Oct29,20112:58am,edited1timeintotal.
Top

byedearlSatOct29,20112:37am
ronnewmexico wrote:
DB....here is a link from wiki on the issue of a accelerating expanding
universe,,,,,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe)
Two scientists just received the nobel peace prize in realation to this. It was
firstly observed in 1998 but has been now confirmed.
Yes it does in some manner seem to contradict Einstein. The finding now of
particles that exceed the speed of light also thought by Einstein impossilbe
offer contradictions as well.
It remains true neverthless the universe is accelerating away apart more and
more rapidly....fact as much as fact can be known. Dark matter has been
theorized as causitive factor but that is still theory.... not considered fact as it
is not directly observable presently.
Just for the record, the Wikipedia article and other sources attribute accelerating expansion
of the universe to dark energy. On the other hand, dark matter is the explanation of why
galaxies and galaxy clusters are held together; although, the observable matter in galaxies
has insufficient gravity to prevent the galaxies and clusters from flying apart. They are called
dark because they cannot be observed, and nothing is actually known about them.
One hypothesis is that dark matter is merely normal matter that cannot be seen because it
does not emit light, as stars do. In other words, it might be an accumulation of black holes
and interstellar matter similar to the Oort Cloud which surrounds the Solar System. But, the
more accepted hypotheses are more exotic.
Top

byronnewmexicoSatOct29,20113:05am
Yes for the record correct..correctly stated dark energy not dark matter..
8/12
14/10/2558
all these being as noted theoritical at this time the acceleration apart...considered fact.
Earth is doomed regardless and likely are atoms as well. Though that be still theoritical as
well at this time.
The chances humans survive such a thing or things I'd surmise is very close to or actually zero.
Regardless of space ships colonizations and all the possible transport options which may
become available. The largeness of it all and our insignificance in comparison to the forces
present and acting upon this thing assure our devolvement.
Though I don't doubt due to inner motivation of the unconscious sort this will never be
accepted as true in the scientific community nor the public at large.
As only very reluctantly was allowed notions that speak against our grandeur such as planets
being present on other suns, anything basically that makes us humans less than special.
My opinion...scientists most will state this is all factually based and not moved by inner
motivation at all.
But my opinion differs, very very reluctantly do we accept our reduction on a scientific basis .
Top

byAcchantikaSatOct29,20113:21am
deepbluehum wrote:
This is an incorrect account of Wittengenstein's position.
Wittgenstein's selfrefuting "philosophy as a language game" is meant nihilistically. Not in a

soapbubble kind of way.
My point is that meaningfulness depends on the representational structure,

paradigm, context, world view, etc, which depends on the purpose of the
communication. His example of a boss ordering "Brick" comes to mind. Two
equally valid vantage points can render divergent courses of logic. Here we
have one that constructs a world from experiment and data. And one that
utilizes information innately present in the percipient. These two start points
render different logics.
We still have to establish what contitutes a "valid vantage point" with language, logic etc.
The relationship between thought, language and behaviour is something the Buddha taught.
You cant be deep blue hum without bright red ah.
The information innately present is wideopen to misidentification to those who abandon
proper method and reify beliefs based on faith without evidence. No amount of semantic
gymnastics about relative viewpoints will evade this observation. Conceptual attachment and
conceptual abandonment are both extreme attitudes. There are rules, Neo.
LasteditedbyAcchantika(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1244)onSatOct
9/12
14/10/2558
29,20113:44am,edited2timesintotal.
Top

byAcchantikaSatOct29,20113:35am
Food_Eatah wrote:
Are you really an Acchantika?!!! You were mentioned on the Mahaparinirvana
sutra!!! Can I have your autograph?!!!
Afraid not, sorry. I was gonna go with icchantika, which is much, much more appropriate, but
I thought that would be too cynical, even for me. So I picked this instead because it seemed
more inspiring at the time.
ronnewmexico wrote:
Earth is doomed regardless
Speaking of inspiring thoughts...

Top

bySherabDorjeSatOct29,20119:10am
Acchantika wrote:
And I mean "later" is right now, you have ample past life material to work with right now
since it is your past karma that has lead to this existence. I reccomend the first section of the
Wheel of Sharp Weapons by Dharmarakshita in order to fully understand what I am saying.
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... clean.html
(http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level3_lojong_material/specific_texts/wheel_sharp_wea
Top

bySpinyNormanSatOct29,201110:12am
deepbluehum wrote:
10/12
14/10/2558
Impermanence and rebirth are one teaching. Every moment is a little different
than the previous. Thus, moments are discontinuous, each composed of distinct
interdependent conditions. Being distinct yet conventionally useful, each
moment is the rebirth of the previous, and stands in causal relationship to the
previous.
I don't think it makes any sense to talk about the rebirth of a previous moment, or moment
tomoment rebirth. It's true that this moment arises in dependence on the previous moment,
but there is nothing begin "reborn", it's just perpetual change and transient conditions.
CP
Top

bySherabDorjeSatOct29,201110:25am
And so is "individual" rebirth.

Top

byAcchantikaSatOct29,201112:45pm
gregkavarnos wrote:
Acchantika wrote:
And I mean "later" is right now, you have ample past life material to work with
right now since it is your past karma that has lead to this existence. I
reccomend the first section of the Wheel of Sharp Weapons by Dharmarakshita
in order to fully understand what I am saying.
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... clean.html
(http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level3_lojong_material/specific_texts/wheel_sharp_weapons_dharmara
Ok cheers I'll check it out.

Top

bydeepbluehumSatOct29,20114:35pm
11/12
14/10/2558
CP Gumby wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
Impermanence and rebirth are one teaching. Every moment is a little
different than the previous. Thus, moments are discontinuous, each
composed of distinct interdependent conditions. Being distinct yet
conventionally useful, each moment is the rebirth of the previous, and
stands in causal relationship to the previous.
I don't think it makes any sense to talk about the rebirth of a previous moment,
or momenttomoment rebirth. It's true that this moment arises in dependence
on the previous moment, but there is nothing begin "reborn", it's just perpetual
change and transient conditions.
CP
What is reborn each moment is deluded perception.

Top
PreviousNextDisplaypostsfromprevious: Allposts
Ascending
Go
Sortby Posttime
Postareply
773postsPage11of391...8,9,10,11,12,13,14...39
ReturntoOpenDharma
Jumpto: OpenDharma
Go
Who is online
Usersbrowsingthisforum:Lazy_eye,websat11and1guest
2015DavidN.Snyder,Ph.D.,VipassanaFoundationinassociationwithTheDhammaEncyclopedia
DharmaWheelisassociatedwithDhammaWheel.com,DhammaWiki.com,andTheDhamma.com..
Chatroom
>
12/12

Re: Are Karma and Rebirth For Real?

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Re: Are Karma and Rebirth For Real?

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

14/10/2558

Are Karma and Rebirth Real?

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63406)

According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, there is no meaningful statement about

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63408)

Dechen Norbu wrote:

Hummm we have a lot of faith in things we can't measure and measurement

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63412)

Nagarjuna negated all assertions, including rebirth exists.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63414)

Empiricism is a theory of knowledge based on sensory information. Science is its

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63415)

I meant later as in recollections of past lives, not death.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63420)

The trivially true statement (2+2=4) is not the same as (2 + 2 = 4 is true).

This is an incorrect account of Wittengenstein's position. My point is that meaningfulness

Nagarjuna negated all assertions, including rebirth exists.

And negated rebirth doesn't exist. So what of that?

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63421)

Then he negates the existence of language, so?

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63423)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63427)

Rebirth doesnt exist. Its a relative phenomena.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63434)

Probably coz consciousness is not born from DNA?

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63439)

DB....here is a link from wiki on the issue of a accelerating expanding

in 1998 but has been now confirmed by various form.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63442)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63443)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63446)

Wittgenstein's selfrefuting "philosophy as a language game" is meant nihilistically. Not in a

My point is that meaningfulness depends on the representational structure,

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63448)

Speaking of inspiring thoughts...

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63456)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63462)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63464)

And so is "individual" rebirth.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63472)

Ok cheers I'll check it out.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63478)

What is reborn each moment is deluded perception.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen