Re: Are Karma and Rebirth For Real?

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

Forumrules
Postareply
Searchthistopic
Search
773postsPage15of391...12,13,14,15,16,17,18...39
Reportthispost(./report.php?f=66&p=64307)
Replywithquote(./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=64307)
Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64307)

byKevinSolwaySatNov05,201112:36am
deepbluehum wrote:
In the Arupa jhanas there is no body at all.
And you know this how? Because you read it in a book?

There cannot be a conversation if you're just going to repeat your interpretation of what you
read in books.
Without the five skandhas one cannot see the 12links. Therefore, a body is
necessary.
So long as consciousness exists then it can experience all manner of thoughts, including
suffering, happiness, and change, so there's no reason it can't progress towards Buddhahood.
I'm not interested in what you believe you've read in books. I'm only interested in reasons.
Top

deepbluehum wrote:
If you are merely interested in debunking dharma based on the scientific
methodology
I'm debunking nonsense using reason. I'm not using scientific methodology.
It is Buddhists, such as the monk in my video, and yourself, who attempt to use science to
support their mistaken beliefs.
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678&start=280
1/16
14/10/2558
However, when Buddhists do attempt to use science to support their beliefs, they tend not to
have any understanding of the science.
Top

bySherabDorjeSatNov05,201112:51am
KevinSolway wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
Do you consider yourself a true Buddhist that is regarded as a non
Buddhist?
That's correct. And anyone who considers me a Buddhist wouldn't be considered

a Buddhist.
And by a slight strech of logic, anybody that disagrees with you is a nonBuddhist. Great! Yet
another white guy with delusions of grandeur!
I can't agree with that. There's only one reality. If every person has their own
reality then there's no point helping people to overcome their delusions.
Define reality. I asked you twice to do this but you have ignored me. If you are going to throw
around terms we gotta reach some sort of consensus on their meaning or else the discussion
is pointless.
As you know, I have the following interpretation of rebirth.

"Birth" in Buddhism has nothing at all to do with physical birth. "Birth" refers to
the birth of the false "I", which repeatedly arises in nonBuddhas. Likewise
"Ageing and death" has nothing to do with physical ageing and death, but it
refers to the ending of the happiness that is associated with attachments.
Well I'm going to take the Buddhas definition on what the Buddhist interpretation of birth is
And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, comingtobe, coming
forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various
beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
and the Buddhas defintion on what the Buddhist defintion of ageing and death is
"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness,
graying, wrinkling, decline of lifeforce, weakening of the faculties of the
various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever
deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion
of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the
2/16
14/10/2558
life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called
death.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html)
So while it is still called "rebirth" it is entirely different to what is commonly

believed and taught by Buddhist teachers, such as the Dalai Lama, et al.
That which is popularly called "rebirth" is in fact not rebirth at all, but is just a
fantasy.
To quote your words "I don't approve of people associating helpful words with unhelpful
activities." Or in this case, unhelpful defintions.
The reason I put those words in quotation marks is that they are not my words.
I'm simply relaying what I have heard from many Buddhist teachers and
practitioners. These teachers sincerely believe that you must go through certain
formal initiations, with a physical, human teacher, in order to progress along
the path. I have explained to them why they are mistaken, politely giving clear
and detailed reasons, but they are adamant.
So you have received initiations and personally experienced that they are mistaken and
unecessary? I asked you this question again and you did not answer. You have a nasty habit of
not replying to questions which reveal the flaws in your arguments.
The same way any wise person knows they are not delusional.
How do you know you are wise? You don't come across as wise, just opinionated.
Top

gregkavarnos wrote:
Yet another white guy with delusions of grandeur!
You would have delusions of grandeur if you believe you are able to make such diagnoses.
Define reality
3/16
14/10/2558
"Define reality" is an impossible task if I am aware of reality and you aren't.

I have already explained that there's only one reality, so that should give you a big clue.
Reality is the fact that things lack inherent existence, and that consciousness is not
independent of the physical world in contrast to what many Buddhists believe.
Well I'm going to take the Buddhas definition
I suggest that you keep in mind that you don't know what the Buddha's definition was. All you
have is your interpretation. Or are you claiming that you directly know the Buddha's mind?
And as an aside, your interpretation is an interpretation of a translation of words written by
monks in a language the Buddha never spoke, compiled long after he died, and which the
monks probably had no understanding of.
And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, comingtobe,

comingforth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media
of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
Those words are perfectly consistent with my explanation of the meaning of "birth" in
Buddhism, and in the 12 links.
Likewise with the words concerning death. You need to understand that "body" doesn't have
anything to do with the physical body, and "beings" doesn't have anything to do with physical
beings. Buddhism is not so concerned with physical things, but with the mental life. The
Buddha was a philosopher and not a scientist.
We have many beings within us.
For example, in an experiment with splitbrain patients, where the two hemispheres of the
brain have been severed, they asked the patient's left hemisphere whether he believed in
God, and he did. But when they asked his other hemisphere whether he believed in God, he
was an atheist!
We have countless such minds within us. And during a single day we experience countless
different realms of existence.
So you have received initiations and personally experienced that they are
mistaken and unecessary? I asked you this question again and you did not
answer.
4/16
14/10/2558
I didn't answer because I consider your question to be extremely foolish.

Let me answer your question with another question: Do you have to commit a particular
crime in order to find out whether you should do so?
How do you know you are wise?
Obviously I believe I am wise because I believe I know all the essentials that a person should
know and in great depth.
Top

byedearlSatNov05,20112:58am
deepbluehum wrote:
I don't pretend to understand the situation, all I can say is what is described.
Here's an example:
I saw this on a National Geo thing called "Moment of Death," or something like
that. The story went as follows.
Heart surgeons had stopped this guy's heart to do a heart transplant, and he
had no brain activity and no heart. The surgeon had a habit of putting his wrists
on his hips and pointing at with his elbows as he gave orders; this was done to
keep his hands free from contamination.
When the guy woke up after surgery he told the docs and nurses he saw the
surgeon from an overhead angle moving his elbows back and forth like a chicken
barking orders at the nurses. The doc and staff were astonished because the
only time he could have witnessed this was when he was clinically dead.
So either the criteria for clinical death is wrong or one can have experience of
sight and memory when one is dead.
My feeling is stuff like this can be taken at face value. I would agree that this
experience this guy had was somehow dependent on the existence of his body.
But we don't come close to understanding how. Buddha explained there are 31
planes of existence. I take that at face value too.
"It is now considered by the medical profession and supported by legal and some ethical
consensus that if a person's entire brain is dead, the person is dead. The reason is that if the
entire brain is destroyed, there is absence of spontaneous breathing and expected cessation
of heartbeat soon. It is on the basis of this concept that all life support treatments which the
5/16
14/10/2558
patient may have had in place before brain death has been established can be removed
because the patient is now dead. " See: http://www
hsc.usc.edu/~mbernste/ethics.braindeath.html (http://www
hsc.usc.edu/~mbernste/ethics.braindeath.html)
National geographic is not always a good source of information, for example one of its shows
is The Truth Behind: The Loch Ness Monster.
Lasteditedbyedearl(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1428)onSatNov05,
20113:19am,edited1timeintotal.
Top

byedearlSatNov05,20113:13am
deepbluehum wrote:
If you are merely interested in debunking dharma based on the scientific
methodology then you can easily do that, but the problem is the scientific
methodology. It never renders any proof of anything, as you may well know.
Nonetheless, the very best evidence of anything can only be obtained by the scientific
process. The scientific method is not a problem, it is the most reliable process for examining
the cosmos. That a good scientist should always be skeptical about accepted theories is part
of that process, and that skepticism assures that scientific knowledge is as good as it can be.
No other mode of rational thought, especially one that does not encourage skepticism, can
ever produce a body of knowledge that is more accurate, except pure mathematics and logic
wherein proofs do exist.
Lasteditedbyedearl(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1428)onSatNov05,
20116:42am,edited1timeintotal.
Top

byLastLegendSatNov05,20116:11am
If you are empty, why does having a body bother you?

Top

bycatmoonSatNov05,20116:31am
Note: Whether or not a person has delusions of grandeur has no bearing on the veracity of
their arguments. It also constitutes an ad hom argument as used above. No hitting below the
belt.
Top
6/16
14/10/2558

bymuniSatNov05,20118:03am
catmoon wrote:
Note: Whether or not a person has delusions of grandeur has no bearing on the
veracity of their arguments. It also constitutes an ad hom argument as used
above. No hitting below the belt.
While of course in maturing we avoid or reject in greedy pleasing our concepts, avoid
hardship of teaching....not so good, really not so good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOSZLgzgnBs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=LOSZLgzgnBs)
Top

KevinSolway wrote:
"Define reality" is an impossible task if I am aware of reality and you aren't.
Oh... So only you are aware of reality then. Good on yah Dave!
I have already explained that there's only one reality, so that should give you a
big clue. Reality is the fact that things lack inherent existence, and that
consciousness is not independent of the physical world in contrast to what
many Buddhists believe.
Thank you for (finally) defining your view of reality. You are quite right, many Buddhists do
not adhere to your purely materialistic opinion. That does not make your view right and by
the same token it does not make their view wrong. You see, you went to town on
deepbluehum who gave a personal experiential (albeit subjective) view on the experiences
found in the 31 planes of existence, accusing him of espousing theories based merely on what
he has read. So now I ask you: where does your view of reality come from? Omnscience?
Information gained through study? Personal experience? What makes your view more valid
than deepbluehum (for example)?
I suggest that you keep in mind that you don't know what the Buddha's definition
was. All you have is your interpretation. Or are you claiming that you directly
know the Buddha's mind?
And as an aside, your interpretation is an interpretation of a translation of
words written by monks in a language the Buddha never spoke, compiled long
after he died, and which the monks probably had no understanding of.
7/16
14/10/2558
Well, gee, thanks for pointing out my nose to me Dave. Oh, how could I possibly forget, only
you have an understanding of what the Buddha said. Only you have a monopoly on (correctly)
interpreting the Buddhas words. Only you have a monopoly on knowing the Buddhas mind.
For your informantion Dave (many Buddhists believe that) all of us have the capacity of
knowing the Buddhas mind (including you), since all of us are manifestations of the
Dharmakaya. All of us carry within our (current) mind/body accumulation the
Tathagatagarbha.
I didn't answer because I consider your question to be extremely foolish.

Let me answer your question with another question: Do you have to commit a
particular crime in order to find out whether you should do so?
You have to commit the crime in order to experience the crime. You may understand the
experience through intellectual consideration, but that does not mean that you have
experienced it. Can you truly know the experience of tiredness if you have never been tired?
NO! Initiations are an experiential and not an intellectual activity. If you have not
experienced them (and even if you have experienced them) you cannot understand their
significance. That is why the question is not foolish and that is why you did not respond to it.
Obviously I believe I am wise because I believe I know all the essentials that a
person should know and in great depth.
Knowledge is not the sole basis of wisdom. What of the role of experience in wisdom? If I don't
know about the details of quantam physics does that mean I am not (cannot be) wise? You
may claim to be knowledable, but your unwillingness to accept the veracity of the
experiences and knowledge of others betrays the fact that you are not wise.
Top

catmoon wrote:
Note: Whether or not a person has delusions of grandeur has no bearing on the
veracity of their arguments.
Of course it does CM. If somebody believes that only they are correct and that all others are
worthless it tends to influence the veracity of their arguments. If Dave believes that only he
(and anybody that agrees with him) is a Buddhist, and that only he has the correct view of
reality, and that only his knowledge and experience is of any value, etc... Then it DEFINITELY
will have a bearing on the veracity of his arguments.
It also constitutes an ad hom argument as used above.
This is true. Sorry.

8/16
14/10/2558
LasteditedbySherabDorje(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=390)onSatNov
05,201110:22am,edited1timeintotal.
Top

gregkavarnos wrote:
Oh... So only you are aware of reality then. Good on yah Dave!
First of all, I don't know who Dave is, and secondly, if you think that I am the only one who is
aware of reality then you are a very foolish person.
many Buddhists do not adhere to your purely materialistic opinion.
I have no idea what you mean by "purely materialist". This is an assumption on your part.
What I say, and what I argue, is that mind is not independent of the physical world.
you went to town on deepbluehum who gave a personal experiential (albeit

subjective) view on the experiences found in the 31 planes of existence,
accusing him of espousing theories based merely on what he has read.
I don't believe deepbluehum knows, from either reason or personal experience, how many
planes of existence there are, or whether the physical human body is the ideal body to attain
Buddhahood. I believe he is merely repeating what he has read, and I said so.
So now I ask you: where does your view of reality come from?
My view comes from reason and experience, and that's what makes my view more valid than
an ungrounded personal interpretation of words in a book.
Only you have an understanding of what the Buddha said.
9/16
14/10/2558
I don't know what you've been learning from your teachers, but if they've been telling you this
then they are completely wrong.
We can only guess at what the Buddha said, and then we can only interpret what we think is
the meaning of what we think he said.
Only you have a monopoly on (correctly) interpreting the Buddhas words.
You have an extremely warped way of looking at the world. I don't know where you picked up
the habit, but it's not a good one to have.
I know a number of people who interpret the Buddhist teachings in a similar way to myself. I
am not the only one.
But it shouldn't matter how many people believe something. Don't your teachers teach you
that you shouldn't appeal to logical fallacies, such as ad hominem, or strawman, or ad
populum? They should be teaching you these things.
Initiations are an experiential and not an intellectual activity.
Crime is an experiential and not an intellectual activity.

So do you have to commit a crime in order to know that you shouldn't do so?
According to your argument, you cannot understand the significance of a crime until you
commit the crime.
Top

gregkavarnos wrote:
Here you are apologizing for something you just claimed was totally justified.
That's like a bank robber saying that he was totally justified in robbing a bank, but then tries
10/16
14/10/2558
to avoid going to jail by saying "sorry".

Even in the case that a person claims that they are the only person who is right, and that
everyone else is wrong, that is definitely not an argument that the person is wrong. I think
you simply fail to understand the logic of the issue.
Top

KevinSolway wrote:
First of all, I don't know who Dave is, and secondly, if you think that I am the
only one who is aware of reality then you are a very foolish person.
Sorry, Kev!
I was referring to this statement of yours:
"Define reality" is an impossible task if
I am aware of reality and
you aren't.
Seeing how we are having a dialogue if one of the two of us (you) is aware of reality and one
of the two of us (me) is not, then only you are aware of reality.
...What I say, and what I argue, is that mind is not independent of the physical
world.
That is what I mean by purely materialist. Actually some traditions claim that consciousness
is composed of one of the mahabhuta, namely air. So there is some support in some schools
for your position.
My view comes from reason and experience, and that's what makes my view
more valid than an ungrounded personal interpretation of words in a book.
You are assuming that everybody elses view is based on ungrounded interpretation of words, I
think you will find that deepbluehum verified his knowledge through his experience. That he
too used reason and experience to come to his conclusion. Like I said, you do not have a
monopoly on reason and experience.
...We can only guess at what the Buddha said, and then we can only interpret
what we think is the meaning of what we think he said.
I agree, but I am not condemning the veracity of your interpretation by saying that you are
not a Buddhist, that is something you are doing.
11/16
14/10/2558
...I know a number of people who interpret the Buddhist teachings in a similar
way to myself. I am not the only one.
I can understand that, but that does not make other interpretations that coincide with the
three seals and other Buddhist "philosophical prerequisites" nonBuddhist. That is your
judgement.
Crime is an experiential and not an intellectual activity.
Well it's both actually, so maybe my example was not so perfect.
...According to your argument, you cannot understand the significance of a

crime until you commit the crime.
That is not what I said. I said that you cannot experience a crime without commiting a crime.
Anyway, taking part in an initiation ceremony is not the same as breaking and entering. You
can go ahead and experience an initiation without having to deal with going to jail. That's
what I recommend, experience an initiation and then judge from your experience if it is valid
FOR YOU or not. What the hell, I am sure you have spent many hours of your life engaging in
infinitely more pointless activity (I know I have). I can vouch from my experience and
reasoning that it is not an insignificant and useless activity. I am sure there are many more
people that will agree with me and just as many that won't. I won't go into analysis of who is
right and wrong, and who is or is not a Buddhist 'cause I am not yet deluded enough to believe
that I can judge this.
Top

KevinSolway wrote:
Here you are apologizing for something you just claimed was totally justified.
No, I am apologising for using it as an ad hom, it doesn't mean that I am apologising for my
"diagnosis".
Even in the case that a person claims that they are the only person who is right,
and that everyone else is wrong, that is definitely not an argument that the
person is wrong. I think you simply fail to understand the logic of the issue.
I never said that what you are stating is wrong, I said that it is severely deluded and arrogant
to believe that only you, and everybody that agrees with you, are right and everybody else is
wrong.
12/16
14/10/2558
Top

bycatmoonSatNov05,201111:43am
gregkavarnos wrote:
catmoon wrote:
Note: Whether or not a person has delusions of grandeur has no bearing
on the veracity of their arguments.
Of course it does CM. If somebody believes that only they are correct and that
all others are worthless it tends to influence the veracity of their arguments. If
Dave believes that only he (and anybody that agrees with him) is a Buddhist,
and that only he has the correct view of reality, and that only his knowledge
and experience is of any value, etc... Then it DEFINITELY will have a bearing on
the veracity of his arguments.
LOL I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this! Nonetheless, let us suppose, for the sake of
argument, that someone does in fact have all the delusional beliefs you list above. Now, if he
tells you a bus is coming and don't step off the curb, the veracity of the statement is solely
conditional on whether or not there is, in fact, a bus coming. If a person is severely
delusional, that may affect one's estimate of the probability of him speaking truth, it may
make one highly suspicious of anything he says, but that is no basis for rational argument. In
rational argument, a statement can only be disproved by demonstrating it is not in accord
with reality.
In formal debate one often hears the debaters referring to each other as "My esteemed
opponent" or "My esteemed colleague". I think this is done partially because it reminds
debaters that merely by entering into a debate, they are granting that the opponent is
worthy, or at least reasonably sane. This strikes me as good debating technique, good
manners and good Buddhism too.
Top

byKevinSolwaySatNov05,201112:14pm
gregkavarnos wrote:
Seeing how we are having a dialogue if one of the two of us (you) is aware of
reality and one of the two of us (me) is not, then only you are aware of reality.
13/16
14/10/2558
If I'm aware of reality, and you aren't, then that's just the way it is. It doesn't logically follow
from this fact that I'm wrong.
So there is some support in some schools for your position.
Well I don't consider myself to be a materialist, and the number of schools that support my
position is irrelevant.
You are assuming that everybody elses view is based on ungrounded

interpretation of words
That's not true, since I wouldn't make that assumption about people who think along the
same lines that I do.
I think you will find that deepbluehum verified his knowledge through his
experience.
Well I don't find that. If he claims to have verified it by his own knowledge, then I don't
believe him. I might believe him if he explained his reasoning as to why there is a certain
exact number of plains of existence, or the reasons why the physical human body is the best
body, as opposed to any other body in the Universe, in the countless trillions of galaxies.
That he too used reason and experience to come to his conclusion. Like I said,
you do not have a monopoly on reason and experience.
If it is the case that I'm aware of reality and you are not, it doesn't logically follow that I have
a monopoly on it. Your logic is flawed.
I am not condemning the veracity of your interpretation by saying that you are
not a Buddhist, that is something you are doing.
14/16
14/10/2558
I have not said that anyone is not a Buddhist.

As it happens, while all beings have some potential for wisdom, I don't consider that all beings
are Buddhists. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
In my opinion the failure to understand the nature of the self and consciousness in those who
believe in the literal interpretation of rebirth, indicates a major failure to understand the
very essence of Buddhist philosophy. While this fact alone doesn't mean these people are not
Buddhists of a sort, it does mean that they are far from being a shining example of Buddhism
especially when they promote their unnecessary speculations (e.g., that a person can be
reborn as an actual rabbit) as Buddhist doctrine. It makes Buddhism into a joke.
Anyway, taking part in an initiation ceremony is not the same as breaking and
entering.
That's just your personal opinion. In my opinion it is not a desirable activity.
I won't go into analysis of who is right and wrong, and who is or is not a
Buddhist 'cause I am not yet deluded enough to believe that I can judge this.
It is a delusion if you think that noone can judge such matters.

Top

byKevinSolwaySatNov05,201112:22pm
gregkavarnos wrote:
I said that it is severely deluded and arrogant to believe that only you, and
everybody that agrees with you, are right and everybody else is wrong.
If I claim that A=A, and you claim that A=not A, then I am fully justified to claim that I am
right and you are wrong.
Top

bySherabDorjeSatNov05,201112:34pm
catmoon wrote:
15/16
14/10/2558
...In rational argument, a statement can only be disproved by demonstrating it

is not in accord with reality.
Can we agree that Kevs' claims to omniscience and omnipotence are not in accord with
reality and then work from there? Would that be rational? Would it also be rational to assume
that Kev is not the only Buddhist in this thread?
Like I said, sorry for the ad hom, it was out of line. But at the same time (of course there is
always a butt), and I am not saying that this applies to Kev, but if somebody were stark raving
mad I would be a little stupid to not to take their words with a grain of salt. By the same
token if Kev says to me that he knows reality and I don't, well...
It doesn't leave much
room for polite debate.
Top

bySherabDorjeSatNov05,201112:36pm
The clown exits the circus ring leaving the dancing poodle in the tutu to continue the show
alone.
LasteditedbySherabDorje(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=390)onSatNov
05,201112:54pm,edited1timeintotal.
Top
PreviousNextDisplaypostsfromprevious: Allposts
Sortby Posttime
Ascending
Go
Postareply
773postsPage15of391...12,13,14,15,16,17,18...39
ReturntoOpenDharma
Jumpto: OpenDharma
Go
Who is online
Usersbrowsingthisforum:Lazy_eye,websat11and1guest
2015DavidN.Snyder,Ph.D.,VipassanaFoundationinassociationwithTheDhammaEncyclopedia
DharmaWheelisassociatedwithDhammaWheel.com,DhammaWiki.com,andTheDhamma.com..
Chatroom
>
16/16

Re: Are Karma and Rebirth For Real?

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Re: Are Karma and Rebirth For Real?

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

14/10/2558

Are Karma and Rebirth Real?

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64307)

And you know this how? Because you read it in a book?

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64309)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64310)

That's correct. And anyone who considers me a Buddhist wouldn't be considered

As you know, I have the following interpretation of rebirth.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

So while it is still called "rebirth" it is entirely different to what is commonly

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64315)

"Define reality" is an impossible task if I am aware of reality and you aren't.

Well I'm going to take the Buddhas definition

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, comingtobe,

I didn't answer because I consider your question to be extremely foolish.

How do you know you are wise?

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64318)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64319)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64326)

If you are empty, why does having a body bother you?

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64328)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64330)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64333)

I didn't answer because I consider your question to be extremely foolish.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64334)

This is true. Sorry.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64335)

many Buddhists do not adhere to your purely materialistic opinion.

you went to town on deepbluehum who gave a personal experiential (albeit

Only you have an understanding of what the Buddha said.

Only you have a monopoly on (correctly) interpreting the Buddhas words.

Initiations are an experiential and not an intellectual activity.

Crime is an experiential and not an intellectual activity.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64336)

This is true. Sorry.

to avoid going to jail by saying "sorry".

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64337)

I am aware of reality and

Crime is an experiential and not an intellectual activity.

Well it's both actually, so maybe my example was not so perfect.

...According to your argument, you cannot understand the significance of a

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64338)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64339)

This is true. Sorry.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64340)

So there is some support in some schools for your position.

You are assuming that everybody elses view is based on ungrounded

I have not said that anyone is not a Buddhist.

That's just your personal opinion. In my opinion it is not a desirable activity.

It is a delusion if you think that noone can judge such matters.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64341)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64342)

...In rational argument, a statement can only be disproved by demonstrating it

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64343)

S-ar putea să vă placă și