[JackieC]

Hello Karma Yeshe,

First of all thank you for sharing the teachings with us. From my understanding, Kalu Rinpoche is trying to persuade his audiance to believe in rebirth because its useful.

In order to practice the Dharma taught by the Buddha it is necessary, at the outset, to establish confidence in its validity.

First we must understand that we have had countless lives in the past and will continue to have countless lives until we attain the level of a Buddha or Bodhisattva. Belief in the existence of previous and future lives gives rise to confidence in the truth of karma, the effects of actions. This confidence is based on understanding that unvirtuous actions lead to suffering and virtuous actions lead to happiness. Without this conviction, we will not abandon unvirtuous actions or perform virtuous ones. If one has no confidence in the existence of past or future lives or in the truth of the effects of karma, then one will have no appreciation of Buddhism or any other religion. The practices of all religions are based on the intention to benefit oneself and others in a future existence. This sort of reasoning reminds me of an interview with Bertrand Russel on the BBC in 1959 when the interviewer asked him if he thinks there is a practicle reason for having a religious belief, his answer was:

"Well, there cant be a practicle reason for believing what isnt true! That's quite ... at least i rule it out as impossible. Either the thing is true or it isnt. If it is true you should believe it and if it isnt you shouldnt. And if you cant find out whether its true or whether it isnt you should suspend judgement... But you cant ... it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think its useful, and not because you think its true"

and here is a link for the interview for your reference, its only a 3 minutes video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOM...eature=related


Everyone is concerned about having a long life and freedom from sickness. It is good to have these things, but people neglect to provide themselves with good circumstances for future lifetimes. We should recognize that the mind that experiences future lifetimes is the same mind we have now, so we should therefore be concerned with providing for the future experiences of that mind. Did he use the word "the same" !! how about impermenance and non-self? is he refering to the mind as the hindu refer to the soul in this particular instance? or is it me who is misunderstanding his words?? As you can see the idea of rebirth can make things very confusing for beginners like myself

If we can practice Bodhicitta, develop patience, and pacify all disharmony in our own home, then we have prepared the way leading to the development of limitless Bodhicitta. If, on the other hand, we cannot maintain patience and harmony in our own home with our own family, then it is very unlikely that we will be able to do this with respect to all sentient beings, who are infinite in number. So if, after hearing these teachings, you go home and eliminate all disharmony in your home and family, I will proclaim you all male and female Bodhisattvas! In my opinion this is the best part of the teachings because its so true. I remember Ram Dass said once " if you think you are so enlightened then go and spend a week with your Parents"

The relationship with our parents is not only the primordial relationship that sets the tone for all subsequent relationships, it is also a good test for our presence. The more shared past there is in a relationship, the more the ego becomes complex and the more present you need to be, otherwise you will be forced to relive the past again and again.

Regards,
Bundokji

[mvjvz]

First we must understand that we have had countless lives in the past and will continue to have countless lives until we attain the level of a Buddha or Bodhisattva. Superstitious speculation based on Hinduism and Tibetan culture


Belief in the existence of previous and future lives gives rise to confidence in the truth of karma, the effects of actions. This confidence is based on understanding that unvirtuous actions lead to suffering and virtuous actions lead to happiness. Without this conviction, we will not abandon unvirtuous actions or perform virtuous ones. Why can this is not be true of this one lifetime?


Although we are all born as human beings, each person experiences different circumstances, such as a long or short life, mental happiness or misery, and wealth or poverty. These variations in individual circumstances arise through previous karma accumulated in former lifetimes Each person experiences different circumstances because of cause and effect. We are born to different parents in different places and come into contact with different conditions wich give rise to other different conditions. These arguements for Karma in future lives seem no better than the one I heard from Catholics as a child, saying I would go to Hell if I was naughty.


If one has no confidence in the existence of past or future lives or in the truth of the effects of karma, then one will have no appreciation of Buddhism Nonsense with a cherry on the top. Buddhism is about understanding the causes of anguish and about kindness and compasion and about IMPERMANENCE.

[rushiddink]

Hello Element,

Thank you very much for your detailed answers to my questions. There are plenty for me to learn from you and other members on this fourm.

in very deep meditation (jhana), which occurs after the mental stress or sensations within the physical body are completely tranquilised, the mind merges within itself and becomes and is aware of itself as exceptionally radiant

those who near death are probably the same. the body is shutting down, awareness ceases to be pre-occuppied with the body and is only aware of the radiance or white light in the mind as the mind neurologically blisses out due to not feeling the stresses of the body

thus, when the doctors revive these people & they return to ordinary consciousness, all they can remember the radiance & white light that occurred to the mind as it somehow disconnected itself from awareness of the body due to the shutting down of the body Please excuse my ignorance, but is there any objective way to verify that what you and other practicing Buddhists experience in "Jhana" is the mind, not the soul?? How can you be sure that its not the opposite? is it possible that "the radiance" or "the white light" is the soul and because of your Buddhist beliefs you mistakenly thought of as the mind?!

Peace

[TheReallyBest]

I would hesitate to label promoting a belief in that which is unobservable as "useless":

In politics a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie

Please don't misunderstand the "lie" part as being an attack. It's just the example I was familiar with.

[Mjypksun]

Hello Aloka,

Thank you for the link. I ve learned a lot from the links you provided me before on meditation and the "Handbook for mankind"

This is just an opinion Kalu Rinpoche had, and is certainly not true about some teachers and students 25 years later, who are dedicated to the Buddha's teachings but prefer not to speculate about past and future lives. I also recall a teacher from the same lineage telling someone who found it difficult to believe in rebirth, that it wasn't neccessary to think about other lives because this life is the important one. I could not agree more, Buddhism as i understand it is a very practical philosophy/religion that teaches us how to improve our lives and be in harmony with the world around us. Personally, i find putting too emphasis on the idea of rebirth serves only as a distraction from the more important teachings of the Buddha.

Regards,
Bundokji

[funnyPasds]

My second question is: what led the Buddha to deny the existance of a a permenant soul? and what Buddhists say about the stories we hear about people experiencing their souls departing from there bodies?

IMHO, I think Buddha is denying the existence of an unchangeable 'soul', and not saying there is no 'soul'.

[Meenepek]

Hello FBM,

Plato's republic is based on elitism and must be ruled by phlosophers which makes it undemocratic in the modern sense. Personally i disagree with the idea of "noble lie" as i find the deontological theories on ethics more superior than utilitrianism, especially the Kantanian theory (Categorial Imperative).

One of my favourite quotes of the Buddha "its better to travel well than to arrive" so telling people the truth is the right action regardless if it leads to social harmony or not in my opinion.

Regards,
Bundokji

[freediscountplanrrxip]

Please excuse my ignorance, but is there any objective way to verify that what you and other practicing Buddhists experience in "Jhana" is the mind, not the soul??

thanks Bundokji

the scriptures report the Buddha experienced all conditioned phenomena to be impermanent (arising & falling away) and thus concluded they could not be a (permanent) 'soul' or 'self' ('atman') because they arise & fall away

regards



the Buddha said:

If anyone were to say, 'The mind is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the mind are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The mind is the self.' So the mind is not-self.

If anyone were to say, 'mind objects are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of mind objects are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Mind objects are the self.' So mind objects are not-self.

If anyone were to say, 'The mind consciousness is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of mind consciousness are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Mind consciousness is the self.' So mind consciousness is not-self.

If anyone were to say, 'Feeling [at the mind] is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of feelings is discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self.' So feelings [at the mind] is not-self.

Chachakka Sutta: The Six Sextets

[bZEUWO4F]

Hajurba thinks that rebirth is much misunderstood in general terms. Rebirth is a natural law that can not be proved yet scientifically...but it is obvious that rebirth takes place all the time ever since life evolved on our dear blue planet earth. Rebirth does not mean rebirth of a soul or an ego . It is the rebirth of all varieties of species that share earth with each other. If this would not be a fact then all that lives would have done only one cycle of existence and then would have vanished into the void. This may be difficult to understand for those beings who have developed the power of memory and sophisticated ways of planning , yet evolution shows that rebirth is a form of survival and becoming.

[sniskelsowwef]

As you can see the idea of rebirth can make things very confusing for beginners like myself

Not only for beginners. There are advanced students that do not consider rebirth for their practice. It is not an issue of being an advanced or being into a higher level of attainment.

Rebirth is a believe as it is Reincarnation and, IMO, speaks more about a desire to endure than a useful and central tool toward awakening which seems not to follow the non self teaching.

It is up to everybody to believe in it, to leave it aside in the realm of "we don't know" or frankly dismiss it.

If we ask: "What is what is rebirth?" No body has a good explanation. It is in the realm of endless speculative mental entanglements.

This was not advised by Buddha in any of his teachings: to speculate about rebirth. IMO, it is not transcendental, at least, for the practice of his teachings, those of the Nikayas, and there, it is not the main aspect of his docrtine.

Later on, with further additional elaborations, most traditions make of rebirth and then reincarnation a kind of central issue.

Then with rebirth/reincarnation ideas, the afterlife possible existence was brought back and this open believes and the foundations for Buddhism as a religion. Religions have in common that aspect: An afterlife clearly spoken or an speculative one.

Again, one can practice the teachings of Buddha leaving the ideas of rebirth focusing in what it is important along his teachings: Dukkha, its origin, its cessation and the path that leads to it's cessation.

[dupratac]

Hello hajurba,

Hajurba thinks that rebirth is much misunderstood in general terms. Rebirth is a natural law that can not be proved yet scientifically...but it is obvious that rebirth takes place all the time ever since life evolved on our dear blue planet earth. Rebirth does not mean rebirth of a soul or an ego . It is the rebirth of all varieties of species that share earth with each other. If this would not be a fact then all that lives would have done only one cycle of existence and then would have vanished into the void. This may be difficult to understand for those beings who have developed the power of memory and sophisticated ways of planning , yet evolution shows that rebirth is a form of survival and becoming. If you believe that rebirth of all varieties of species happens all the time, so could you explain why the human population is increasing in the current exponential rate? If your answer is that species from other realms are getting rebirthed as humans, so could you explain why their Karma has suddenly started to lead them to the human realm?

Regards,
Bundokji

[intendepods]

Hello FBM,

Plato's republic is based on elitism and must be ruled by phlosophers which makes it undemocratic in the modern sense. Personally i disagree with the idea of "noble lie" as i find the deontological theories on ethics more superior than utilitrianism, especially the Kantanian theory (Categorial Imperative).

One of my favourite quotes of the Buddha "its better to travel well than to arrive" so telling people the truth is the right action regardless if it leads to social harmony or not in my opinion.

Regards,
Bundokji

I can tell that discussing this would be a very interesting exchange. However, since it doesn't fit with either the OP or this particular sub-forum, we'd probably save it for another time. (I wasn't defending the Noble Lie concept, by the way. Just mentioning how it can be used pragmatically.)

[FUNALA]

Hello Element,

the Buddha said:

If anyone were to say, 'The mind is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the mind are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The mind is the self.' So the mind is not-self.

If anyone were to say, 'mind objects are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of mind objects are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Mind objects are the self.' So mind objects are not-self.

If anyone were to say, 'The mind consciousness is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of mind consciousness are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Mind consciousness is the self.' So mind consciousness is not-self.

If anyone were to say, 'Feeling [at the mind] is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of feelings is discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self.' So feelings [at the mind] is not-self. The Buddha have used reductionism in order to understand the "self" and concluded that there is no such a thing as a permenant self.

For those who are not familiar with the term: Reductionism is an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of thier parts.

A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole or even of every proper part of the whole. For instance, both Oxygen and Hydrogen are gases, but when they interact together they produce water (H2O). Another example is when you add two odd numbers (1+1) then you come up with an even number (=2).

What i am trying to say is, maybe our bodies, emotions, minds and consciousness are all impermenant, but when we add them together the final product can be something totally different which is our identity (the self).

I hope you and other members can reflect on the above.

Regards,
Bundokji

[h98hhYxM]

...For instance, both Oxygen and Hydrogen are gases, but when they interact together they produce water (H2O). Another example is when you add two odd numbers (1+1) then you come up with an even number (=2).

What i am trying to say is, maybe our bodies, emotions, minds and consciousness are all impermenant, but when we add them together the final product can be something totally different which is our identity (the self).

You're suggesting a permanent self? To suggest the possibility is, I'm sure you know, very different from demonstrating its truth value. I'd be glad to see some evidence in support of your conjecture, though. That is, I can witness the properties or water and numbers, but a permanent self escapes me. There is also the question as to how one might witness the quality of permanence.

[ahagotyou]

Hi Bundokji!

I'm a rather new Buddhist and member of this community, and I often have trouble understanding this myself. There is a Tebitan Buddhist analogy that helped me a lot though here's a quote from the site I found it on thebigview.com

If we imagine the world as an ocean, we are like the ripples on the ocean. Formations like ripples and waves occur, because of wind, tides, and other kinetic forces. In the Buddhist analogy, the universe is in motion due to karmic forces. A ripple, a wave, or a billow may seem as an individual entity for a moment, creating the illusion that it has a self, but it is gone in the next moment. The truth is that all individuals are one. A ripple is a temporary phenomenon; it is just water in motion. We know that kinetic energy causes wave forms on a body of water and it would be ridiculous to say that a single ripple or wave has a self.

Similarly, in case of beings, the process of coming into life and being conditioned in a particular way is caused by karmic forces. The up and down of the ocean's waves corresponds with the rotation of the wheel of life. The sea that surges, falls, and resurges, is the life that is born, dies, and is reborn again. It is therefore obvious that we should not focus on the temporary phenomenon of the wave, but on the force that causes, forms, and drives it. Nothing else is said, although in more practical terms, in the Eightfold Path. Hope this helps!

[R1king]

Hello hajurba,



If you believe that rebirth of all varieties of species happens all the time, so could you explain why the human population is increasing in the current exponential rate? If your answer is that species from other realms are getting rebirthed as humans, so could you explain why their Karma has suddenly started to lead them to the human realm?

Regards,
Bundokji

Hajurba does not exactly know how large the for humans visible universe is...maybe earth is part of a transit highway of certain elements and stuff? Who knows...maybe the nebula's are all a sort of petrol stations that contain or not contain a number of rest rooms? Just kidding
Hajurba does not know how to answer Bundokji's question. Maybe it helps if you look up inside the Tea Room page 2 "Thread: Funny Buddhis Cartoons anyone?" ....the Post from 14 Sep 11, 00:37

[seodiary]

Hello FBM,

Thank you for your reply. I was not arguing that there is such a thing as a permenant self, but highlighting the fact that if something is true of the parts that does not necessarily make true of the whole. For example, if the human cells are invisible to the naked eye, and humans are made up of human cells, its wrong to conclude that humans are invisible to the naked eye!

While there are logical basis for the "no-self" argument, taking it to an extreme contradicts common sense. Bertrand Russell said "there is obviously some reason in which I am the same person as I was yesterday, and, to take an even more obvious example if I simultaneously see a man and hear him speaking, there is some sense in which the 'I' that sees is the same as the 'I' that hears."

You might be familiar with the psychological continuity criterion which suggests that it is continuity of mental states that constitutes personal identity. One way of filling in the details of this theory is to adopt a Lockean memory criterion. On this approach, it is because I can remember things that my younger self did that ensure that I and my younger self are the same person.

One difficulty with the memory criterion is that there are many things that we have done that we can’t remember. If I go far enough back into my past, perhaps to events in my early childhood, then I cannot remember them; according to the memory criterion, it seems, because I cannot remember these events, it isn’t me that was involved in them.

The memory criterion, however, can be repaired to cope with this objection. I may not be able remember many events in my childhood, but I can remember a time when I could remember events in my childhood. Identity is a transitive relation; if a first thing is identical with a second, and that second is identical with a third, then the first thing is indentical with the third. The present me (which can remember being a teenager) is identical with the teenage me (which could remember being a child) which is identical with the child me; all are therefore the same person.

As you know, philosophers spent hundereds of years arguing the existance of free will (which is a a common sense position that we grow up with) vs determinism. They also argued whether we can prove that our hands really exist (which is another common sense position) vs the dream argument or the brain in the vat. In this particular instance, i cant help but to admire Moor's approach in support of common sense when he said:

This is a hand.
Here is another hand.
There are at least two external objects in the world.
Therefore an external world exists

"Philosophy can be said to consist of three activities," Wittgenstein once explained. "To see the commonsense answer, to get yourself so deeply into the problem that the commonsense answer is unbearable, and to get from that situation back to the commonsense answer."

Please note that i am not implying that the commonsense approach will always lead us to the truth, but what i am trying to say is that it should not be underestimated for its simplicty. Thinking deeply and analyzing is a good habit that i personally try to use, but at the same time, i believe that making a mess is always easier than cleaning it up.

Finally, from my limited understanding of the Buddha's teachings,he attacked all attempts to conceive a fixed self, while stating that holding the view "I have no self" is also mistaken. This is an example of the middle way charted by him. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.

Regards,
Bundokji

[fhutiussk]

Hello BatteredRose,

Thank you for the analogy and for the link. I ve had a quick look at the webiste and i think its great, i added it to my favourites already

Regards,
Bundokji

[MedicineForUs]

Lol hajurba, this is a very logical answer to my question, mystery solved

[EscaCsamas]

Hello FBM,

Thank you for your reply. I was not arguing that there is such a thing as a permenant self, but highlighting the fact that if something is true of the parts that does not necessarily make true of the whole. For example, if the human cells are invisible to the naked eye, and humans are made up of human cells, its wrong to conclude that humans are invisible to the naked eye!

Thanks, Bundokji! Yes, I understand the fallacy of composition. The way I read your previous post made it seem that you were supporting the claim that the self is as real as water. I probably misread your intent. I tend to take things too literally sometimes. The curse of the philosophy major, eh?

While there are logical basis for the "no-self" argument, taking it to an extreme contradicts common sense. Bertrand Russell said "there is obviously some reason in which I am the same person as I was yesterday, and, to take an even more obvious example if I simultaneously see a man and hear him speaking, there is some sense in which the 'I' that sees is the same as the 'I' that hears." Russell's statement presupposes the possibility of personhood as a singular being. This is the commonsense conception of personal being, which is what the Buddha found fault with, I think. But that's not to say that the Buddha took the polar opposite (nihilistic) position, either. The way I think of it, there are perceptions of being an entity (contra nihilism), but necessary inferences based on those perceptions do not point to the commonsense definition of a person (contra eternalism). Hume's bundle theory seems to me to be the most coherent description of being, though it isn't perfect. (Insofar as it claims that there is nothing to an object except its properties, it is making an ontological claim that it cannot ultimately support. Whether or not there is anything more to an object than its properties cannot, as far as I can tell, be known. It must remain in the 'undecided' category, if one is to be intellectually rigorous.)


You might be familiar with the psychological continuity criterion which suggests that it is continuity of mental states that constitutes personal identity. One way of filling in the details of this theory is to adopt a Lockean memory criterion. On this approach, it is because I can remember things that my younger self did that ensure that I and my younger self are the same person.

One difficulty with the memory criterion is that there are many things that we have done that we can’t remember. If I go far enough back into my past, perhaps to events in my early childhood, then I cannot remember them; according to the memory criterion, it seems, because I cannot remember these events, it isn’t me that was involved in them.

The memory criterion, however, can be repaired to cope with this objection. I may not be able remember many events in my childhood, but I can remember a time when I could remember events in my childhood. Identity is a transitive relation; if a first thing is identical with a second, and that second is identical with a third, then the first thing is indentical with the third. The present me (which can remember being a teenager) is identical with the teenage me (which could remember being a child) which is identical with the child me; all are therefore the same person. That's a reasonable approach, and it's robust only as long as you presuppose a) the singularity/individuality of beings as more or less discrete entities embedded in an external universe (above), and b) the reliability of memories. I don't see memories as fixed quantities of information that one carries around in the brain. Memory is behavior, and when the brain produces a memory of event X, it is not the same memory of event X that she had yesterday. The new memory is a new behavior, a new event. Similarly, if I play a song on the piano today and play it again tomorrow, it's a new event, not a repetition of the same event.

That memories are unreliable is well documented. As you mention, memories fade, but people also have false memories of things that never happened. I have a few. Also, memories morph over time. Ultimately, the memory approach is no more robust an argument than the commonsense direct (naive) realism approach. Neither can quite pierce the epistemological veil to say what is actually true behind perception. We're left with perceptions and metaphysical constructs, I think, both of which obviously are, but neither of which match the conventional definition of a self or person.

As you know, philosophers spent hundereds of years arguing the existance of free will (which is a a common sense position that we grow up with) vs determinism. They also argued whether we can prove that our hands really exist (which is another common sense position) vs the dream argument or the brain in the vat. In this particular instance, i cant help but to admire Moor's approach in support of common sense when he said:

This is a hand.
Here is another hand.
There are at least two external objects in the world.
Therefore an external world exists

"Philosophy can be said to consist of three activities," Wittgenstein once explained. "To see the commonsense answer, to get yourself so deeply into the problem that the commonsense answer is unbearable, and to get from that situation back to the commonsense answer."

Please note that i am not implying that the commonsense approach will always lead us to the truth, but what i am trying to say is that it should not be underestimated for its simplicty. Thinking deeply and analyzing is a good habit that i personally try to use, but at the same time, i believe that making a mess is always easier than cleaning it up.

Finally, from my limited understanding of the Buddha's teachings,he attacked all attempts to conceive a fixed self, while stating that holding the view "I have no self" is also mistaken. This is an example of the middle way charted by him. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.

Regards,
Bundokji Ooops. I think I got ahead of myself earlier. I got carried away and responded to the commonsense/direct (naive) realist approach above. Anyway, to sum up my position in a nutshell, I'm not saying that there ultimately either is or isn't a self, only that what is actually experienced does not match the commonsense concept/definition of a person.

I would only add that it appears that natural selection favored the sort of brain that makes this sort of representation of reality, but the telos of natural selection isn't ultimate truth, but survival.

Thanks for this exchange, Bundokji!