Re-birth

Tamara wrote:



I agree, especially since it seems paradoxical, an existentialist's quest. In order to prove past and future selves, it seems to me that I first must prove this self inherently exists. But past and future lives exist/nonexist in a way similar to yesterday and tomorrow.




Attachment to self is with form and so I find the ant an apt metaphor for that seed that takes this self as real, always questing after more to consume and "bring home." The ant's awareness, following the well-worn scent pathways of its fellows, finds new territory to explore and plunder for the good of the troop. I, watching, consider how these pathways are like neural pathways and perhaps extrapolate about how this is similar to brain development or on a larger scale, the historical quest of conquering the world, whether by ships on the ocean or bombers or the global communications network.

The ant's view and my view are both attached to self and its context. While awareness is boundless, attachment steps down the potential energy into view from self.

All our logic tends to take place within the closed system in which it's developed, yet points to the unknowing, the mystery. Even science, as it strives to explain and confirm, finds new questions, more unknowing.

Taking refuge and cultivating the aspiration to remain in samsara as long as necessary in order to free all sentient beings from suffering, ensures that one becomes enlightened. With that heartfelt aspiration, the question of which lifetime may be irrelevant.


To the hell realms--yes! yes! yes!

It certainly helps, but it is not an absolute requirement any more than you need a firm understanding of emptiness to practice Tong Lin, or to recite Shantidiva, or to attend a teaching on the Wheel of Weapons. It just works, because it contradicts our normal habitual struggle. I first saw this on a banner at a hippie fair. Give it a try. Yes, Yes, Yes....

What we need as much as anything is to face and confound our fears for ourselves. Also, our whole sense of self is in many ways dependent on the resistance we give our own thoughts and emotions. Their negative power is dependent on resistance as well. That resistance certainly helps solidify the sense of self and intensifies grasping and aversion. I am not saying this is all you need to practice, but anyone can relax deeper and learn something about them selves from it, I think.

Dear Robert,

Just because we have an aversion to something within one context, does not mean it does not make sense in another context... Finding our way in a different religious tradition is often just as much learning new things as un-learning our old ways of thinking.

The issue with dedicating merit is that karma is for the most part depending on intention, our motivation to do something. If we do not dedicate our positive actions towards spiritual goals, it is quite likely that we 'just' end up with general good karma, in terms of 'some sort of pleasant experience'. Karma has no other direction then the direction we consciously give it.

In that sense, from the Buddhist point of view, independent of whether your Catholic prayers may or may not have sent others to heaven, it is likely that the karma you created for yourself by doing this is very positive; perhaps also for your own future rebirth!

Please allow me to explain where I come from:
I was raised a Catholic myself (be it not strict at all), and I've gone through several phases in my life coping with its philosophy. Since I was 10 years old, I had huge doubts about the whole system of thought, as it simply did not make logical sense to me. That does not mean of course that I thought all teachings were 'bad'.
When many year later I met Buddhism, I finally found a logical way of thinking that combined with a sensible and positive lifestyle, which felt very liberating for me, and initially it only confirmed for me how poor the Catholic (Christian) system worked for me.
However, when I learnt more of the different schools within Buddhism, suddenly the idea came up that Christianity for me looked like an extremely simplified form of Buddhism, where about all philosophy and logic was replaced by God and his words in the Bible. Where good and bad actions are judged by God in Christianity, in Buddhism, karma fulfills a very similar function. Don't forget that some sort of an existence after this life is taught in both religions, even heaven and hell (be it somewhat different in scale).
If you look at both religions, you end up with very similar ethical rules and advice for daily life, like helping each other, having respect for the elders, no killing, no stealing, no lying etc.
In that sense, for me Catholicism represents a lack of respect for the intellect of an individual to decide what is good and wrong, and wanting to replace our common sense with the pages of a book. This feeling is confirmed by the church consciously chosing to keep the Bible in a language that the common man could not even read for many centuries. (Also handy to manipulate people to benefit the church.)
But still, the advice on morals, behavior, and many other things is in general very similar to Buddhism; just presented very differently.

Rudy's post was very good too, this is typical in my experience. I really enjoy reading everyone's posts here. Rudy began by pointing out something important. You aren't just an aspiring Buddhist, you are also a recovering Catholic. A lot of your attitudes and reactions and responses to Buddhist teachings are going through the filter of your past experience with religion. Obviously you are very aware of this. I think it might help to try to be as skeptical of your own baggage as you are of Buddhist teachings. Sometimes if we apply our capacity to think critically in equal portions to ourselves and the teachings, it helps us proceed on the path. There is no sense trying to suppress doubt about teachings, but we can doubt our own sophistication as well.

Rudy and Matt

Well you have certainly given me something to think about. And to act on as well. It's great to have you friends to give me your oideas on these matters.

With cariños ( as they say down here)

Robert

I know this thread is several months old, but I couldn't help but add my two cents.



I agree with Rudy's post: if one tries to squirrel out of rebirth, then essentially you're practicing Diet Dharma. Now, if that's helpful for anyone, then that's fine; however, they shouldn't convince themselves that they're practicing Buddhism.



Now, what I disagree with is that several people mentioned they have no "personal proof". There are three ways of knowing based on whether phenomena is obvious, obscure, or extremely obscure, all of which is based on our cognitive limitations as sentient beings.



Obvious things can be known through sensory perception, like sights, and sounds, etc. I think this is what most of you mean when you say you have no ''proof''. Obscure things can be known through a line of reasoning; this includes rebirth, emptiness, etc. Curiously, if you have a hard time accepting rebirth because you don't have sensory proof, and you can accept emptiness, that's some weak logic! Finally, extremely obscure things, such as karma, can be known through a valid source (until one themselves becomes a valid source).



Now, this line of reasoning, so to speak, for rebirth is mainly a question of continuity of consciousness. There a several types of continuums, but we won't get into all of that. Just remember we're talking about things in a temporal sense (moments over time), not a spatial sense (over "here" then over "there"). Instead, it's important to get a sense of what Buddhism means when we say mind. Whereas matter/energy is quantifiable, it can be measured, touched, tasted, spoken about "objectively", mind is the aspect of us that feels, thinks, perceives, in other words, it's experiencing. It's subjective and individual. Mind isn't a monolithic object, though, contained "in" our bodies; it's not like some sort of tool we use to do the seeing or thinking, etc. It is merely the activity of thinking, hearing, feeling, etc. They are different categories of phenomena.



An important thing to be mindful of is that phenomenon stay in the same category the entire duration of their continuums (I know that sounds like gibberish, but bear with me here! ). For instance, in one moment matter/energy is a seed, then moments later it's a sprout, a tree, a chair, fire and heat, and finally it transforms to smoke and ashes. Across that continuity, though it changed a lot, it reminded "matter/energy". Now, careful here not to think that there is some truly existent play-doh blob that's being shaped over and over, or that there are unchanging atoms that are being re-arranged to constitute things: things are changing moment by moment, even down to the atomic level.



Consciousness is similar: you can have on moment of watching tv with anger, followed by a moment of boredom, then feeling tired, next falling asleep, deep sleep, dreaming, etc. It's a continuity and it never "jumps ship" so that anger becomes wood and a table becomes sadness!

Sure, that's an extreme example, but just to highlight the absurdity of what modern science is positing with no proof: that matter follows an entire continuity only to, at some point, go from electro-chemical reactions in one moment to transform into subjective experiences in the next. One implication, if that were the case, is the question of how those electro-chemical reactions - such as the firing of neurons - continues to be physical phenomena in a later moment! But I digress.

Of course, body and mind have a very close relationship, no one is denying that. Actually, the grosser levels of mind depend entirely on the gross physical body. We can see how dementia's effect on the nervous system changes peoples minds and how meditation by soldiers with PTSD lessens there startle reaction, leading to lower levels of anxiety producing hormones. So, what is the relationship between the body and the mind? This issue is apparent in western thought, going back to Descartes and his "problem". For a wonderful analogy, see Rudy's page on the main website that compares it to the hardware and software of a computer. Really good stuff, seeing as software isn't a physical phenomena and yet we don't doubt it's existence!

Anyway, then one needs to analysis what the body is anyway, it's physical continuum.

Obviously, looking back at old photos, our body changes a remarkable amount over our lifetimes, from conception to death, no? But how is that? How can things change in a grosser way, such as plates breaking and people dying, if they aren't changing in a subtler way, moment by moment, all the time? Our bodies are constituted of various substances: you can think of each organ system, the various different tissues, cells, etc. It's more complicated than that, though. Each moment, our bodies are composed of an incredible about of atoms and energy, and each little bit - say every unit of energy or every atom or molecule - could be said to have it's own ever-changing continuum. They're a part of our body for a moment and then continue to go their own way, all of this coming and going out of sync.



For instance, in previous moments, all of these bits were a part of something else - say the food we ate, the sunlight that warmed our skin, each breath we took today, the sperm and egg of our parents. They were apart of this weird thing we call the body for a while, were transformed and will become a part of something else - kinetic energy when we open a door, bodily waste, our hair when we have it cut, a maggot as it eats our corpse. We can trace the continuity backward or forward, with no end and no beginning. Yet how does it retain it's individuality? That's a little advanced, but suffice it to say, insert a conversation about emptiness and mental labeling!



Similarly, consciousness can be traced back moment by moment, until the moment of conception. Then the question becomes can a mindstream have an ultimate beginning or end? Or, like matter/energy, can it only be transformed, not created nor destroyed? The physical basis, that is necessary for mind, is only a condition, not a substantial cause as we saw. Further, one moment caused another for the entire duration of a "lifetime", so, what's the alternative? Can the first moment of a mindstream that gives rise to a second and third come from no cause at all? Can the last moment, which arose from a previous moment of mind, give rise to no further moment at all? If so, this would imply that an absolute “nothing” transforms into an absolute “something” at an absolute beginning, and that an absolute “something” transforms into an absolute “nothing” at an absolute end. Put simply, this would mean a "non-existent" mental continuum became an existent mindstream at some findable, pinpoint beginning, followed a continuity, then became a non-existent mindstream at a findable, absolute end.



What kind of logic is that? And that's really what this is. It's not some sort of "blind faith" deal but really based on reasoning. Most importantly, this isn't some sort of mind-game, some sort of brain-twister for the fun of it. Understanding rebirth has implications with understanding our situation, it helps us to related equally to and open our hearts to others, no matter their current physical form, and question how it is we really exist, because it's our misconception about who we are that keeps us in these cycles of pain and confusion.



This is not a topic that one is going to "get" right away: it may takes years, it make take decades. Often, people have a mental block related to this topic in the west, not just because of cultural beliefs, but because we cling very firmly to the misconceptions we have about who we are.

But Buddhism does not demand your unflinching faith from the beginning; instead, Buddhism favors skepticism, not blind doubt that simply doesn't believe things because they're new concepts, but an open curiosity to understand the nature of reality.



Hopefully this helped and raised more questions than answers!

With love,

R

Hi R.
I know your reasoning follows the general approach of Buddhism to the mind and rebirth, but I think on its own, it will not convince most westerners.

The problem is the different image that western science has of the mind; mind is basically considered merely a by-product of a functioning brain. So when the brain stops, there are no thoughts. Similar with conception: when no brain has formed yet, we don't even have consciousness.

So the logic only works if we believe in the Buddhist view of the mind. The reasoning of 'when we look back, we cannot find a first moment of thought is really a circular one: if you just have the very first beginning of a brain/mind, how can you remember a first thought? According to the mechanistic/materialistic view of science it is a bit like asking a computer what it did before it was switched on.

To play Devil's advocate here: there is a very good argument in that everything appears to stop when we die. When our brains are fried, there are no more thoughts for sure, so it seems very much as if our brain is just the hardware, and what we call consciousness is just the software. No hardware, no software.

Further, before the computer was turned on, though software wasn't functioning from that basis, could you say it didn't exist? It wasn't created by the computer that's running it after all.

(And, before anyone gets twisted up about taking this analogy too far, software is neither form nor consciousness, it's the third type of phenomena - abstractions, which includes karma, mathematics, etc.)

One last point. Is it some objective truth, the scientific view on mind, or is it a metaphysical assumption? I feel science, for all of its awesome achievements, can tell me relatively little about consciousness. You can hook me up under electrodes and tell me all the electro-chemical reactions taking place in my nervous system, and even tell me what parts are firing and where as I see the color blue, but you can never tell me how it feels to see blue. 

I think these posts say more about us than anything. We need to look into our hearts: do we have an underlying assumption that science is always right? Why is that? Do they not, themselves, formulate opinions? 

Very well said, and I agree. Difficult to develop compassion for others if we're condescending them, and who is this me that's so proud?