Re: Are Karma and Rebirth For Real?

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

Forumrules
Postareply
Searchthistopic
Search
773postsPage18of391...15,16,17,18,19,20,21...39
Reportthispost(./report.php?f=66&p=64519)
Replywithquote(./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=64519)
Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64519)

bymuniSunNov06,20117:41am
No 'one' ever exist no one ever get lost.

Top

byKevinSolwaySunNov06,20117:56am
Virgo wrote:
How do you know it's more mental than physical? If you have a mental
experience of softness when you touch something soft are a soft physical
object, as well as your physical sensory apparatus, not both necessary for that
mental experience to arise?
Those who are in samsara experience things that are not really there. A person who is
experiencing the black flames of hell is not experiencing the real world, but is experiencing
something they have created in their mind.
Top

byVirgoSunNov06,20118:00am
KevinSolway wrote:
Virgo wrote:
How do you know it's more mental than physical? If you have a mental
experience of softness when you touch something soft are a soft physical
object, as well as your physical sensory apparatus, not both necessary
for that mental experience to arise?
Those who are in samsara experience things that are not really there. A person
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678&start=340
1/11
14/10/2558
who is experiencing the black flames of hell is not experiencing the real world,
but is experiencing something they have created in their mind.
But, Kevin, I didn't ask you about black flames of hell. I asked you about you, as a human,
touching a soft physical object, and how much more mental than physical that really is.
Kevin
Top

byLastLegendSunNov06,20118:21am
Is a rock mind?
Top

Virgo wrote:
Kevin, I didn't ask you about black flames of hell. I asked you about you, as a
human, touching a soft physical object, and how much more mental than
physical that really is.
A person in samsara can experience the touch of a soft physical object without physically
touching something soft.
Is that not more mental than physical?
Top

LastLegend wrote:
Is a rock mind?
Not in any meaningful sense that I can think of.

Top
Re: are karma and rebirth for real?
2/11
14/10/2558

byLastLegendSunNov06,20118:31am
Mind has to be meaningful?

Top

Namdrol wrote:
Since things like memory of past lives and so on are best accounted for through
mental moments that exist in a serial continuum . . .
I think that memory of past lives is best accounted for by imagination in a serial continuum.
Such imaginations may be caused by previous imaginations, or by any number of other causes
that are nonmental.
LasteditedbyKevinSolway(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1526)onSun
Nov06,20118:50am,edited1timeintotal.
Top

LastLegend wrote:
Mind has to be meaningful?
What I mean is that words, generally, have to be meaningful, or they have no value to us.
I'm not sure that it is meaningful to apply the word "mind" in the case of a rock. I'm not saying
that it's not meaningful only that I think it's a bit of a stretch.
Top

bySherabDorjeSunNov06,20119:36am
Kutuhalasala Sutta: With Vacchagotta

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival,
exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings
& courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed
One, "Master Gotama, a few days ago a large number of contemplatives,
3/11
14/10/2558
brahmans, and wanderers of various sects were sitting together in the Debating
Hall when this conversation arose among them: 'This Purana Kassapa the
leader of a community, the leader of a group, the teacher of a group, honored
and famous, esteemed as holy by the mass of people describes a disciple who
has died and passed on in terms of places of rebirth: "That one is reborn there;
that one is reborn there." Even when the disciple is an ultimate person, a
foremost person, attained to the foremost attainment, Purana Kassapa
describes him, when he has died and passed on, in terms of places of rebirth:
"That one is reborn there; that one is reborn there."
"'This Makkhali Gosala... This Nigantha Nataputta... This Sajaya
Velatthaputta... This Pakudha Kaccana... This Ajita Kesakambala the leader
of a community, the leader of a group, the teacher of a group, honored and
famous, esteemed as holy by the mass of people describes a disciple who has
died and passed on in terms of places of rebirth: "That one is reborn there; that
one is reborn there." Even when the disciple is an ultimate person, a foremost
person, attained to the foremost attainment, Ajita Kesakambala describes him,
when he has died and passed on, in terms of places of rebirth: "That one is
reborn there; that one is reborn there."
"This contemplative Gotama the leader of a community, the leader of a
group, the teacher of a group, honored and famous, esteemed as holy by the
mass of people describes a disciple who has died and passed on in terms of
places of rebirth: "That one is reborn there; that one is reborn there." But when
the disciple is an ultimate person, a foremost person, attained to the foremost
attainment, Gotama the contemplative does not describe him, when he has
died and passed on, in terms of places of rebirth: "That one is reborn there;
that one is reborn there." Instead, he describes him thus: "He has cut through
craving, severed the fetter, and by rightly breaking through conceit has made
an end of suffering & stress."'
"So I was simply befuddled. I was uncertain: How is the teaching of Gotama the
contemplative to be understood?"
"Of course you are befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you are uncertain. When there
is a reason for befuddlement in you, uncertainty arises. I designate the rebirth
of one who has sustenance, Vaccha, and not of one without sustenance. Just as
a fire burns with sustenance and not without sustenance, even so I designate
the rebirth of one who has sustenance and not of one without sustenance."
"But, Master Gotama, at the moment a flame is being swept on by the wind and
goes a far distance, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, I
designate it as windsustained, for the wind is its sustenance at that time."
"And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in
another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another
body, I designate it as cravingsustained, for craving is its sustenance at that
time."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

4/11
14/10/2558
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.009.than.html)
Top

Vipaka Sutta: Results

"Monks, the taking of life when indulged in, developed, & pursued is
something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the
realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the
taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life
span.
"Stealing when indulged in, developed, & pursued is something that leads
to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry
shades. The slightest of all the results coming from stealing is that, when one
becomes a human being, it leads to the loss of one's wealth.
"Illicit sexual behavior when indulged in, developed, & pursued is
something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the
realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from illicit
sexual behavior is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to rivalry &
revenge.
"Telling falsehoods when indulged in, developed, & pursued is something
that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of
the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from telling
falsehoods is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to being falsely
accused.
"Divisive talebearing when indulged in, developed, & pursued is something
the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from divisive tale
bearing is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the breaking of
one's friendships.
"Harsh speech when indulged in, developed, & pursued is something that
leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the
hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from harsh speech is that,
when one becomes a human being, it leads to unappealing sounds.
"Frivolous chattering when indulged in, developed, & pursued is something
the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from frivolous
chattering is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to words that
aren't worth taking to heart.
"The drinking of fermented & distilled liquors when indulged in, developed, &
pursued is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal,
leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming
5/11
14/10/2558
from drinking fermented & distilled liquors is that, when one becomes a human
being, it leads to mental derangement..."

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.040.than.html)
LasteditedbySherabDorje(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=390)onSunNov
06,20119:40am,edited1timeintotal.
Top

3. The brahman householders of Sala went to the Blessed One; and some paid
homage to the Blessed One and sat down at one side; some exchanged greetings
with him, and when the courteous and amiable talk was finished, sat down at
one side; some raised hands palms together in salutation to the Blessed One
and sat down at one side; some pronounced their name and clan in the Blessed
One's presence and sat down at one side; some kept silence and sat down at one
side.
4. When they were seated, they said to the Blessed One: "Master Gotama, what
is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution
of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy
destination, in perdition, even in hell; and what is the reason, what is the
condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death,
reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world?"
5. "Householders, it is by reason of conduct not in accordance with the
Dhamma, by reason of unrighteous conduct, that beings here on the dissolution
of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy
destination, in perdition, even in hell. It is by reason of conduct in accordance
with the Dhamma, by reason of righteous conduct, that some beings here on the
dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in
the heavenly world..."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.041.nymo.html)
Top

byKevinSolwaySunNov06,201112:41pm
It looks like Greg is waving a flag of defeat.

Top
Re: are karma and rebirth for real?
6/11
14/10/2558

byAcchantikaSunNov06,201112:54pm
KevinSolway wrote:
Regardless of how you perceive your detractors, since you are unable to agreeably define
what is meant by "consciousness" or "physical", as noone yet can, the essence of your
position that "consciousness is dependent on the physical" is completely meaningless.
As an apparent defender of reason and rationalism, you will surely know that any argument
unable to define its own terms is a priori defeated.
Top

byKevinSolwaySunNov06,20111:32pm
Acchantika wrote:
any argument unable to define its own terms is a priori defeated.
I'm more than willing to provide definitions:

Consciousness: being aware of anything.
Physical: the phenomenal universe perceived by the five senses.
If consciousness were independent of the physical world then it could never be aware of the
physical world. And, in addition, it would function perfectly well regardless of lack of sleep,
drugs, lack of oxygen, and brain damage.
Top

byAcchantikaSunNov06,20112:34pm
KevinSolway wrote:
Acchantika wrote:
any argument unable to define its own terms is a priori defeated.
I'm more than willing to provide definitions:
7/11
14/10/2558
Consciousness: being aware of anything.
As you cannot define awareness, you are only replacing one indefinable with another. So your
definition is a tautology.
Physical: the phenomenal universe perceived by the five senses.
A phenomenon in Buddhism means a perceived object, not an objective existent. It is the

same as the Kantian sense of the word.
Hence what is perceived is not a phenomenon, the phenomenon is the perception. If
phenomena are apprehended by an irreducible locus of awareness, which is the only way this
statement could be meaningful, by virtue of parsimony that is a much larger claim than you
were originally making.
Regardless, since you are assuming a "phenomenal" universe (object) that is perceived by
senses (subject) your argument begs the question, assuming a realist position within its own
definition. That is in fact the argument you are seeking to defend.
So both of your defintions are fallacious, in that they are tautological, violate parsimony and
beg the question.
Moreover, they don't say anything whatsoever about the subjects in question consciousness
as awareness is meaningless, physical as phenomenal is contradictory.
If consciousness were independent of the physical world then it could never be

aware of the physical world. And, in addition, it would function perfectly well
regardless of lack of sleep, drugs, lack of oxygen, and brain damage.
If as before, by "physical" you mean "phenomenal", then you are simply saying that
consciousness is not independent of experience, which is trivially the case, being that they
are equatable for all intents and purposes.
You are now also including general cognitive functions in your defintion of consciousness,
contrary to your earlier definition.
If, as you say, consciousness is awareness of mental objects, then it is distinct from its
objects. As memory, perception and other cognitive features are diminished or nonapparent
in the examples you cite, by virtue of your own argument you can never claim that the
consciousness that apprehends these things also ceases. This is because you have already
seperated an oberving awareness as distinct from its objects. What is dependent on physical
conditions must cease with the ceasing of those conditions. In order to claim that this
awareness ceases would require you to be aware of it, which is absurd, and an awareness to
be aware of that, creating an infinite regression. Therefore, this argument is rendered
obsolete both by reductio ad infinitum and ad absurdum.
8/11
14/10/2558
If you say that consciousness is not distinct from the objects it apprehends, you have violated
your own position that consciousness is "being aware of anything".
So in conclusion the statement that "consciousness is dependent on the physical" is reducible
by your own terms to the statement that "consciousness which is awareness is experience",
and useless to any reasonable, wise person seeking truth.
Top

byDechenNorbuSunNov06,20113:23pm
Top

bypadmanorbuSunNov06,20113:53pm
Caz wrote:
Mentally born as a fox ? Where did Buddha teach about being mentally born as
an animal ? People can act like animals sure but they are even mentally far
from them.
This is what happens when you choose to interpret a tradition based on a way "that makes
sense to you." The Buddha did not teach anything like this. Robert Thurman has, however.
Top

bySherabDorjeSunNov06,20114:27pm
KevinSolway wrote:
Waving the Tathagatas banner of victory actually...
9/11
14/10/2558
bannerofvictory.jpg (69.06 KiB) Viewed 326 times

Top

bySherabDorjeSunNov06,20114:46pm
Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying, 'Enough,
headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply answer you. Any
beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond
of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented
by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of
aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even
more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the
midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with,
who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on
things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a
festival. Thus the actor himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others
intoxicated & heedless with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn
in what is called the hell of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When
an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives
them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body,
after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his
wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I
tell you: either hell or the animal womb...

It also strikes me as kind of ironic that anybody that claims to be a Buddhist would be averse
to the recorded accounts of the Buddhas own words. Must be because they completely
contradict their view. Should I start to quote the Buddhas words on attachment to the sense
of selfidentification? Nah... I'll leave it for another thread.
I'll just close with one more Sutta quote, just to drive in the final nail:
Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying, 'Enough,
10/11
14/10/2558
headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply answer you. When
a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased,
& misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered
or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down
& slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the
breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of
those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior strives
& exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is
striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after
death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong
view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you:
either hell or the animal womb...

LasteditedbySherabDorje(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=390)onSunNov
06,20115:06pm,edited1timeintotal.
Top
PreviousNextDisplaypostsfromprevious: Allposts
Sortby Posttime
Ascending
Go
Postareply
773postsPage18of391...15,16,17,18,19,20,21...39
ReturntoOpenDharma
Jumpto: OpenDharma
Go
Who is online
Usersbrowsingthisforum:Lazy_eye,websat11and1guest
2015DavidN.Snyder,Ph.D.,VipassanaFoundationinassociationwithTheDhammaEncyclopedia
DharmaWheelisassociatedwithDhammaWheel.com,DhammaWiki.com,andTheDhamma.com..
Chatroom
>
11/11

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? (#p64519)

No 'one' ever exist no one ever get lost.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64520)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64521)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64522)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64523)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64524)

Not in any meaningful sense that I can think of.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real?

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64526)

Mind has to be meaningful?

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64530)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64531)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64537)

Kutuhalasala Sutta: With Vacchagotta

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

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64538)

Vipaka Sutta: Results

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

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64539)

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

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64548)

It looks like Greg is waving a flag of defeat.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real?

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64550)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64559)

I'm more than willing to provide definitions:

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64569)

I'm more than willing to provide definitions:

Consciousness: being aware of anything.

Physical: the phenomenal universe perceived by the five senses.

A phenomenon in Buddhism means a perceived object, not an objective existent. It is the

If consciousness were independent of the physical world then it could never be

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64576)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64579)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64585)

Waving the Tathagatas banner of victory actually...

bannerofvictory.jpg (69.06 KiB) Viewed 326 times

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p64589)

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

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

S-ar putea să vă placă și