Are Karma and Rebirth Real?

[Virgo]

Sutrayāna upholds substance dualism

I haven't found it in the Pali Canon.

Oh it's in the Suttas, but fleshed out much more in the Theravada Abhidhamma.

Kevin

[KevinSolway]

Oh it's in the Suttas

Please provide a quote that says that the most fundamental kinds of substance are mental and material, and that there is definitely nothing more fundamental than those, along with the reasons why there can't be anything more fundamental.

[gregkavarnos]

What is it that separates one beginningless series from another one?

The metaphor of Indras jeweled net which is used in the Avatamsaka sutra may help clarify this issue for you http://dharmaflower.net/_collection/avatamsaka.pdf

[gregkavarnos]

Please provide a quote that says that the most fundamental kinds of substance are mental and material, and that there is definitely nothing more fundamental than those, along with the reasons why there can't be anything more fundamental.

Wait a second, this sounds suspiciously like you are willing to accept a claim to authority!!! You're slipping Kev!

[KevinSolway]

Wait a second, this sounds suspiciously like you are willing to accept a claim to authority!!!

I am lowering the level of my communications by a hundredfold so as to not offend the beings in this realm.

How does the saying go? "When in Rome, do as the Roman's do."

[LastLegend]

Naw I am cool not offended. It won't change what I do.

[Malcolm]

There cannot be an absolute cause of a beginningless series.

There can't be a serial beginning to a beginningless series, but there can certainly be a cause to the entire series.

What is it that separates one beginningless series from another one? That would be the cause of a particular beginningless series.

One cannot posit a first cause of a beginningless series, that is a contradiction in terms.

N

[Malcolm]

Sutrayāna upholds substance dualism

I haven't found it in the Pali Canon.

Examine Dharmakirti's proofs of rebirth.

[Dechen Norbu]

Wait a second, this sounds suspiciously like you are willing to accept a claim to authority!!!

I am lowering the level of my communications by a hundredfold so as to not offend the beings in this realm.

How does the saying go? "When in Rome, do as the Roman's do."

Don't play the victim, Kevin. It doesn't suit you.
This is a public space. As such there are a few guidelines people should follow so that threads don't derail and we can all have a more or less pleasant experience.
In a nutshell what was asked of you is that if trying to refute rebirth, karma or any other tenet as traditionally understood and taught you can't do so based on theories of your own making. They may make a lot of sense to you, but at the end of the day, for the rest of the folks here they are nothing more than your personal fabrications. We have no reason whatsoever to attribute any credit to them, especially when they aren't as well thought as you seem to believe.
So it's not a matter of people taking offense. It's a matter of what you say having real interest to others. Nobody here disallows you from bringing forth your ideas, so it's not that you are being censored. As I've said already, just create a specific topic and present them and we'll be fine. If people want to participate, they'll meet you there.

[deepbluehum]

Sutrayāna upholds substance dualism

I haven't found it in the Pali Canon.

Examine Dharmakirti's proofs of rebirth.

That's 7th Century stuff; a lot of water under the bridge there. I'm saying Pali Suttas are sutra stuff, and I can't find dualism in Buddha's sermons. The opposite.

[deepbluehum]

Sutrayāna upholds substance dualism

I haven't found it in the Pali Canon.

Oh it's in the Suttas, but fleshed out much more in the Theravada Abhidhamma.

Kevin

Forget Theravada. Where in the Suttas? I defy you to identify a single example.

[KevinSolway]

There cannot be an absolute cause of a beginningless series.

There can't be a serial beginning to a beginningless series, but there can certainly be a cause to the entire series.

What is it that separates one beginningless series from another one? That would be the cause of a particular beginningless series.

One cannot posit a first cause of a beginningless series, that is a contradiction in terms.

So it's clear from the above that you cannot conceive of consciousness, as you define it, as having an external cause - outside of the series of moments of consciousness. The only way this could be possible is if one of the following were true:

1. You conceive of consciousness as being inherently existent.
or
2. You conceive of consciousness as being the only thing in existence.

Do you agree?

If consciousness were the only thing in existence, then we can discuss whether that is possible, or meaningful, and if it were possible, what that would mean so far as rebirth is concerned. On the other hand, if you conceive that consciousness is not the only thing in existence, but that it is inherently existent, then we can discuss the possibility of that, and what it would mean for rebirth.

[deepbluehum]

Consciousness is not the only thing in existence nor inherently existent because it cannot be perceived.

[KevinSolway]

Consciousness is not the only thing in existence nor inherently existent because it cannot be perceived.

If it can't be perceived in any way then you can't know anything about it, and you wouldn't know that it can't be perceived.

[deepbluehum]

Consciousness is not the only thing in existence nor inherently existent because it cannot be perceived.

If it can't be perceived in any way then you can't know anything about it, and you wouldn't know that it can't be perceived.

Not seeing is seeing in this case. That's what you come to know (vidya).

[gregkavarnos]

So it's clear from the above that you cannot conceive of consciousness, as you define it, as having an external cause - outside of the series of moments of consciousness. The only way this could be possible is if one of the following were true:

1. You conceive of consciousness as being inherently existent.
or
2. You conceive of consciousness as being the only thing in existence.

Do you agree?

If consciousness were the only thing in existence, then we can discuss whether that is possible, or meaningful, and if it were possible, what that would mean so far as rebirth is concerned. On the other hand, if you conceive that consciousness is not the only thing in existence, but that it is inherently existent, then we can discuss the possibility of that, and what it would mean for rebirth.

Go read everything Nagarjuna wrote, then read the commentaries, then find a teacher to explain them to you, then meditate on the meanings.

But initially, in order to achieve realisaton, all of us must overcome our pride and attachment to ego and most importantly (as evidenced by all our posts on this board) we have to overcome our clinging to views as well. Otherwise it will all be just hollow words.

[padma norbu]

Sadly, I have found Kevin is out there in full force, trying to disseminate his views:

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/

http://www.youtube.com/user/KevinSolway

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?thr ... njk&page=2

I offer this for the simple reason that it seems pointless to debate with him once you realize that would entail more than a simple admission of error on a message board.

[Malcolm]

So it's clear from the above that you cannot conceive of consciousness, as you define it, as having an external cause - outside of the series of moments of consciousness. The only way this could be possible is if one of the following were true:

1. You conceive of consciousness as being inherently existent.
or
2. You conceive of consciousness as being the only thing in existence.

Do you agree?

No -- Neither the first nor the second consequence are entailed.

A given consciousness is a conditioned stream, composed of moments, each moment being neither the same nor different than the previous moment (this is the solution to the problem of identity in a series suggested by Nāgārjuna).

There are infinite number of such given beginnginless consciousnesses.

The status of objects in general is purely conventional, I am happy with either the relative truth model of sautrantikas or yogacara -- does not matter much to me. Which ever you like.

If you prefer sautrantika, then the stream of material existents is also without beginning. If you prefer yogacara, all material existents are mental projections and have no existence outside of the mind that perceives them.

This is all from a sutrayāna POV.

N

[Malcolm]

That's 7th Century stuff; a lot of water under the bridge there. I'm saying Pali Suttas are sutra stuff, and I can't find dualism in Buddha's sermons. The opposite.

The very fact that formless realms beings are immaterial proves substance dualism in sutrayāna.

[gregkavarnos]

That's 7th Century stuff; a lot of water under the bridge there. I'm saying Pali Suttas are sutra stuff, and I can't find dualism in Buddha's sermons. The opposite.

The very fact that formless realms beings are immaterial proves substance dualism in sutrayāna.

I remember you saying in another thread that consciousness is composed of the mahabhuta of air, from which yana does this teaching come from, and if it is true (across all yana) then does this then not mean that even formless realm beings have a (subtle) physical basis (I was going to say body, but then reminded myself of name and form)?