Are Karma and Rebirth Real?

[deepbluehum]

Read about this you will find it true. Two scientists just received great prizes for this discovery though it occured several years ago.

The universe is rapidly expanding and accelerating.We are on a collision course with another galaxy.
It is reasonably assumed concurrent with this now known acceleration that eventually over time the forces which allow atoms to be atoms and remain as such by certain forces will be overcome by the forces of disassociation(some call dark matter) and themselves accelerate apart.

Dark matter concurrent with this known fact of acceleration compirses the majority of energy in the universe by proportion..yet we cannot perceive it only know of it by the movements of known objects(such as in the acceleration)
Nothing will sustain and remain that is certain.

All the buddhas words are proven true by science...it only remains to be discovered.
Earth..forget the earth it will not sustain. Not a bit of it.
Study it read it yourself.

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

[Acchantika]

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

Hummm we have a lot of faith in things we can't measure and measurement itself is a problem, but I get what you're saying. I find wise to investigate the teachings with an open mind and consider those we can't be sure right now as working hypothesis. If we deem them as unimportant, we won't even look for their accuracy and it will be our loss. It's usually helpful to put our own, sometimes hidden, metaphysical predilections to the test. Many don't hold as much water as we think they do prior to a good philosophic analysis. Learning the rationale behind rebirth and karma and realizing that our own metaphysical assumptions may stand on quick sands helps us gain perspective.

People can't force faith. Some don't seem to understand this fact. In "the old days", faith came because people trusted in the learned and those were usually the clergy. So if the clergy said it, it must be true. Those days are long gone for some people, especially those who went through college. Anyway, faith can't be forced, not upon ourselves, nor upon others. That is neither wise, nor ethical. Some people accept the testimony of those they trust. If a student knows his teacher well enough, he makes sense, and he learned the rationale behind those more exotic teachings, confidence starts to build naturally. With further study and practice comes a new mode of apprehension of reality, insight. The problem with this knowledge is that although it can be replicated, it can't be demonstrated to a 3rd party. So everyone who wishes to gain knowledge through it, needs to undergo the proper training.

For sure, I very much agree. I am playing devil's advocate a bit, too. Of course, intellectual inquiry is only a small and very fragile aspect. However, I think that in a intellectually driven society moving beyond the normal contracted forms of perception is no small feat, and I still think conviction can be developed in a number of ways. But I understand too what you said before that it is disingenuous to not be fully transparent about what was actually taught. My teacher told me once that there are no real secrets in Buddhism, there are just levels of understanding. The first thing you tell a prospective buddhist is not, "you have no soul and all your relationships are empty", even thought that is kinda true. You tell them that all conditioned things are empty, and they kind of figure out the rest. So too, if they may have an issue with rebirth/karma, you tell them everything is impermanent, and they will naturally come to the conclusion of that. So I think you are right, as usual, that we should find a middle way in these things, as usual.

[Acchantika]

You should look at the work of the analytics (Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations) to understand how 2+2 does not equal 4, depending on how the assumptions (i.e., the representational structure) are described.

Wittgenstein's argument is with the relationship of language to objective reality. I was talking about the structure of representational language as correlated to the structure of relational thought, a correlation he depends on. The trivially true statement (2+2=4) is not the same as (2 + 2 = 4 is true). Invoking Wittgenstein to restate the truism that language does not represent reality, renders everything in this thread meaningless including your own posts.

The only way this line of thinking can be concluded is by you arguing that logic is arbitrary and empiricism a mere accumulation of information. Since, you are organising concepts and language to communicate, as well as using empiricial reasoning to submit posts, I am always going to disagree with you. So we should probably just agree to disagree.

I hope you are not presuming Nagarjuna negated rebirth or took a skeptical position that only the probable remains.

Nagarjuna negated all assertions, including “rebirth exists”.

The best you are going to be able to do through science, with respect to the path itself, is show that science does not contradict the path.

Agreed.

[Acchantika]

Yep. That's the point. Science and Buddhism are opposites. Science relies on objectivity, Buddhism on subjectivity.

Empiricism is a theory of knowledge based on sensory information. Science is its methodological application. In Buddhism, the mind that apprehends objects, such as a memory of previous lives, is a sense. Ergo, Buddhist phenomenology is an empirical argument, not its opposite.

I'm not saying the oppose each other. But undeniably, the two come from two opposite perspectives, one from the point of view of material objectivity, and the other from the point of view of deep subjectivity.

Science and Buddhism both only deal with phenomena, perceived events, not noumena, objective events. A publicly observable phenomenon is not a noumenon.

The argument that empirical data approximates objective reality is called realism, and is not the same as empiricism or science.

[Acchantika]

I'm just saying, it is not skillful, in the modern age, to expect people to have faith in something they can't directly measure with only the promise that they will experience it later.

Later? What they are experiencing now is a consequence of rebirth based on the outcomes of past action (karma). If seeing rebirth in action merely required dying, we would have seen and personally verified it an infinite number of times, given we have already lived and died a countless number of times.

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

[deepbluehum]

Wittgenstein's argument is with the relationship of language to objective reality. I was talking about the structure of representational language as correlated to the structure of relational thought, a correlation he depends on. The trivially true statement (2+2=4) is not the same as (2 + 2 = 4 is true). Invoking Wittgenstein to restate the truism that language does not represent reality, renders everything in this thread meaningless including your own posts.

The only way this line of thinking can be concluded is by you arguing that logic is arbitrary and empiricism a mere accumulation of information. Since, you are organising concepts and language to communicate, as well as using empiricial reasoning to submit posts, I am always going to disagree with you. So we should probably just agree to disagree.

This is an incorrect account of Wittengenstein's position. My point is that meaningfulness depends on the representational structure, paradigm, context, world view, etc, which depends on the purpose of the communication. His example of a boss ordering "Brick" comes to mind. Two equally valid vantage points can render divergent courses of logic. Here we have one that constructs a world from experiment and data. And one that utilizes information innately present in the percipient. These two start points render different logics.

Nagarjuna negated all assertions, including “rebirth exists”.

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

[deepbluehum]

Then he negates the existence of language, so?

[Thug4lyfe]

Are you really an Acchantika?!!! You were mentioned on the Mahaparinirvana sutra!!! Can I have your autograph?!!!

[Josef]

Nagarjuna negated all assertions, including “rebirth exists”.

Rebirth doesnt exist. Its a relative phenomena.

[edearl]

But as to DNA the fact it's a molecule does not account for how consciousness is reborn from it.

Probably coz consciousness is not born from DNA?

...
Anyway, let's say that in your immediately previous life you were a microbe. Can you even begin to imagine what a microbial memory would be like? I mean they don't have the same senses as us and we currently define our experience and memory via our senses (I felt this, I saw that, I heard this, I tasted that...) So if, suddenly, a microbial memory flashed up in your consciousness could you even possibly begin to be able to define it as an experience (as you now "know" experience) or a memory?

Evolution via natural selection adapts species to better survive in an ecological niche. An ecological niche provides both positive and negative feedback to the species that cause it to adapt. This process is analogous to a person receiving positive or negative feedback and adapting (because one remembers the feedback) to either seek the positive feedback or avoid the negative feedback. Thus; IMO species adaptation is, in essence, the species remembering feedback from their ecological niche; however, this memory is unconscious. That is how I imagine species memory, including microbial memory.

[ronnewmexico]

DB....here is a link from wiki on the issue of a accelerating expanding universe,,,,,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

Two scientists just received the nobel peace prize in realation to this. It was firstly observed in 1998 but has been now confirmed by various form.
Yes it does in some manner seem to contradict Einstein. The finding now of particles that exceed the speed of light also thought by Einstein impossilbe offer contradictions as well.

It remains true neverthless the universe is accelerating away apart more and more rapidly....fact as much as fact can be known. Dark matter has been theorized as causitive factor but that is still theory.... not considered fact as it is not directly observable presently.

Around three billion years,some say seven or so, has some estimates on when we collide with another galaxy. Some billion or so years later may be the point at which atoms actually start to devolve apart is what I have heard, but I would guess that is very very far from known being mainly conjuctural and varying significantly. 22 billion has been used in a theoretic model of this.This is called the big rip.

Earth is done over finished just a matter of time. Impending galaxy collision being first. Things continue as they do and in all likelyhood the theists or others of religion will declare it verboton, in certain areas of the world by government to be known of... by my guess.
This simply devolves certain ways of thinking of things and is quite quite revolutionary in its implications....imagine shortly a known time when we know with relative certainity the earth all things in our universe will come apart. No going to another planet or galaxy none of that....atoms pulled apart all.
Give it time but that time is upon us.
Not all but all constituted as we are of these particularly charged particles of matter...not antimatter and their universes their galaxies if so they do exist, I'd guess.
Or places comprised of other matter perhaps like dark matter unknown by us as we cannot perceive it.

Space we assume empty but it is not by my take. If force energy may be perceived we may not call such a thing empty.the force of the expansion dark matter or not indicates a presence of a thing. That thing exerting things apart. If somewhere in space is any object that space is not empty.
We may perceive it as empty as we if we could survive such a expansion could view that place we would see nothing else at all...but our perceptive ability is very limited, in all likelyhood dark matter will constitute empty space, empty to us as in nonperceivable but filled to the brim with it. dark energy, hence not empty. Lack of ability to perceive a thing does not infer it is not there.
In a conceptual format I agree with the similiarities of these things mentioned.
We are a microcosom of things as we must be, I see that as buddhist thought but keep in mind this is only of things of our sort we are this microvision.
Dark matter energy we are not of these things but affected by these. Perhaps antimatter is the same.
Space it is not that is expanding. Universe it is that is expanding and accelerating, this measured by the relative positions of galaxies one to another.
Universe I would personally call...what is known or reasonably theorized to exist as form/energy.
Space then considered all or that in which a universe may reside. A perhaps conceptual issue only as energy may be all, just we perceive it as this and that.
But conceptually it enables us to pursue a thing such as measurement of a universe. Comparing perhaps we are only known energy to unknown energy perceived as empty...again to my opinion all filled to the brim, so all measurable by relationship of gradients of energy.
It is true there is not a place to be ultimately, but also true is that relationship of energy indicates or relates to us as acceleration or deceleration, in a scale of observation. That things are perceived empty does not indicate they may not accelerate nor decelerate. A atom for instance my indicate a frame of reference by which a thing may be ascertained to be in relationship to. It does all remain relative as all is measured, and but measurement... but that does not infer acceleration in this relative fashion is not occuring.
In a ultimate fashion filled to the brim is space with all by that necessity relationship. But filled to the brim things of varying contribution may have within that filling, individual items moving apart or closer to in a accelerating fashion.
It is true this is all relative to what we know to be there. Space is a lake of ultimate demensions of which we the fish see only other fish and not the prime mover the water. So it is not space as we think it.

[edearl]

DB....here is a link from wiki on the issue of a accelerating expanding universe,,,,,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

Two scientists just received the nobel peace prize in realation to this. It was firstly observed in 1998 but has been now confirmed.
Yes it does in some manner seem to contradict Einstein. The finding now of particles that exceed the speed of light also thought by Einstein impossilbe offer contradictions as well.

It remains true neverthless the universe is accelerating away apart more and more rapidly....fact as much as fact can be known. Dark matter has been theorized as causitive factor but that is still theory.... not considered fact as it is not directly observable presently.

Just for the record, the Wikipedia article and other sources attribute accelerating expansion of the universe to dark energy. On the other hand, dark matter is the explanation of why galaxies and galaxy clusters are held together; although, the observable matter in galaxies has insufficient gravity to prevent the galaxies and clusters from flying apart. They are called dark because they cannot be observed, and nothing is actually known about them.

One hypothesis is that dark matter is merely normal matter that cannot be seen because it does not emit light, as stars do. In other words, it might be an accumulation of black holes and interstellar matter similar to the Oort Cloud which surrounds the Solar System. But, the more accepted hypotheses are more exotic.

[ronnewmexico]

Yes for the record correct..correctly stated dark energy not dark matter..

all these being as noted theoritical at this time the acceleration apart...considered fact.

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

[Acchantika]

This is an incorrect account of Wittengenstein's position.

Wittgenstein's self-refuting "philosophy as a language game" is meant nihilistically. Not in a soap-bubble kind of way.

My point is that meaningfulness depends on the representational structure, paradigm, context, world view, etc, which depends on the purpose of the communication. His example of a boss ordering "Brick" comes to mind. Two equally valid vantage points can render divergent courses of logic. Here we have one that constructs a world from experiment and data. And one that utilizes information innately present in the percipient. These two start points render different logics.

We still have to establish what contitutes a "valid vantage point" with language, logic etc.

The relationship between thought, language and behaviour is something the Buddha taught. You can’t be deep blue hum without bright red ah.

The “information innately present” is wide-open to misidentification to those who abandon proper method and reify beliefs based on faith without evidence. No amount of semantic gymnastics about relative viewpoints will evade this observation. Conceptual attachment and conceptual abandonment are both extreme attitudes. “There are rules, Neo”.

[Acchantika]

Are you really an Acchantika?!!! You were mentioned on the Mahaparinirvana sutra!!! Can I have your autograph?!!!

Afraid not, sorry. I was gonna go with icchantika, which is much, much more appropriate, but I thought that would be too cynical, even for me. So I picked this instead because it seemed more inspiring at the time.

Earth is doomed regardless

Speaking of inspiring thoughts...

[gregkavarnos]

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

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

[Spiny Norman]

Impermanence and rebirth are one teaching. Every moment is a little different than the previous. Thus, moments are discontinuous, each composed of distinct interdependent conditions. Being distinct yet conventionally useful, each moment is the rebirth of the previous, and stands in causal relationship to the previous.

I don't think it makes any sense to talk about the rebirth of a previous moment, or moment-to-moment rebirth. It's true that this moment arises in dependence on the previous moment, but there is nothing begin "reborn", it's just perpetual change and transient conditions.

CP

[gregkavarnos]

And so is "individual" rebirth.

[Acchantika]

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

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

Ok cheers I'll check it out.

[deepbluehum]

Impermanence and rebirth are one teaching. Every moment is a little different than the previous. Thus, moments are discontinuous, each composed of distinct interdependent conditions. Being distinct yet conventionally useful, each moment is the rebirth of the previous, and stands in causal relationship to the previous.

I don't think it makes any sense to talk about the rebirth of a previous moment, or moment-to-moment rebirth. It's true that this moment arises in dependence on the previous moment, but there is nothing begin "reborn", it's just perpetual change and transient conditions.

CP

What is reborn each moment is deluded perception.