Navayana Buddhism

[nowheat]

The only thing that unravels is the traditional understanding; this isn't the same as the Dharma unraveling. The Buddha's dharma makes perfect sense without literal, after-death rebirth, and with karma being something we can see in action in this very life. This can be very hard to see, though, when one's understanding of Buddhism is entirely based on the traditional take.

Your reformed ideology is no longer Buddhism.

It is not your Buddhism, no. It is not the most popular Buddhism in the world, no. It's not what you define as Buddhism? Fine. But your definition of Buddhism is empty. (I believe this is what Dana was trying to say back a page or so.)

The Buddha's dharma was originally about how to overcome cyclic existence, i.e., involuntary rebirth.

The Buddha talks about rebirth with reference to Dependent Origination. DO is not a simple, one-dimensional teaching; it has many layers. One layer uses the structure of beliefs about rebirth that were common in his day to show that those beliefs are the cause of problems we create ourselves. The language used -- being centered on beliefs about rebirth -- gets mistaken for meaning rebirth is true. But what Dependent Origination is doing is using that structure -- of people's beliefs in rebirth -- to simultaneously deny that those beliefs worked out the way people thought they did, and to point out that something else entirely is happening. The structure simultaneously denies "atta" and describes "anatta"; the cyclic existence is of anatta, not of anything that can move from this life to a life after death.

[Dechen Norbu]

Let me tell you a little secret, nowheat. Things being as you see them, there are much better ways to spend your life than practicing that Dharma of yours.
Considering the state of affairs in Psychology, it's useless as a therapeutic tool, does little or nothing for improving adjusted behavior and falls under the category of so many other superficial self help systems. Adding to that, it has no more philosophic value than the rest, what makes it extremely dull.
I'm pretty sure that if such was the great discovery of Buddha, he wouldn't bother teaching it to others. Not new, not useful, not deep, not cool... just dull.
There you have it.
Had you spent the amount of time you did trying to reform Dharma so that it fits your preexistent worldview actually making an effort to understand its deeper meaning, you would have been better served. At least you would know what you're rejecting. You make a big fuss about us accepting some of what are called non definitive teachings, under a Mahayana perspective, and by rejecting these you end up throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Rebirth, literal karma, other realms and so on are important teachings, but they are not the most deep teachings. But because you reject, and that is clear now, these "traditionalist" approaches, you end up losing the most important about Dharma and that is not rebirth, not other realms, not any of that, but what makes them acceptable to us. And you don't even know what that is and that's a shame. This is the direst problem, not not being convinced of rebirth and all that.

[Dechen Norbu]

[...]

Do you have any idea of how many times people more erudite than you tried to prove yours and similar interpretations of the Buddhadharma and failed to a few of us present in this thread?
I've read so many times those same arguments, plus the suttas they use to sustain them (you still haven't got to that part, but I'm sure you will ) and all that, that I lost count already. I'm not even going to say how many times Namdrol defeated, again and again, that sort of argumentation. When I say defeated, I mean really crushed. Those are old news, you see?

You are wasting time, not because we have our minds made, but because you argue an impossible cause. I hope some day you realize that.
But other than that you seem a very nice guy and that I appreciate a lot. Keep posting your arguments if you want, but this is a debate you won't win.
Not from a Buddhist perspective at least.

Well, that's it for me. You guys enjoy!

[Josef]

Had you spent the amount of time you did trying to reform Dharma so that it fits your preexistent worldview actually making an effort to understand its deeper meaning, you would have been better served.

This is exactly the issue with these tired arguments.
People don't want to work with their habitual patterns but for some odd reason think the like Buddhism.
Therefore, rather than actually putting forth the effort necessary to truly understand Buddha dharma they try to force it to change for them.
Well said DN.

[PadmaVonSamba]

My understanding is that it is freedom from dukkha -- so not "Invalid answer" at all. ... Beings who do not experience dukkha (which in the non-traditional view are generated by concepts of self that are within their power to change) are already free of dukkha -- see how that works? They don't have to be exposed to the Dharma to achieve Nirvana because they don't experience dukkha in the first place.

hello nowheat. (is it no wheat, or now heat?) anyway, I am interested in your viewpoint. I don't agree with it, but I can certainly see how it makes sense to you and probably to others. However, I would like to offer a correction to your statement (above).
Even though not all creatures experience dhukkha on an intellectual or even rudimentary conceptual level, they do experience it on some level, and this can be seen because they show a preference for one type of situation over another. For example, moths are attracted to light. Flies attempt to avoid being swatted, and so on. Even microbes may "attracted" to heat and moisture. They may not think "I am suffering" if they don't find it. Their lifespans may only be for a few hours anyway, and they may not feel discomfort as we know it, but they are still struggling to survive and hopefully to reproduce.
They are always in a state of striving.

I share some of your way of thinking. maybe this will help bridge some differences in understanding:

An interesting point that the great Indian Scholar & yogin Nagarjuna brings up is that all thoughts follow other thoughts. He argues that thinking does not spontaneously occur from component matter.
Hence, a baby cannot spontaneously begin thinking without it's basic sensory "thought" following a previous one.

Consider the recipe for this great zombie snack, the human brain:
Water 77 to 78 %
fats 10 to 12 %
Protein 8%
Carbohydrate 1%
Soluble organic substances 2%
Inorganic salts 1%

While the brain certainly provides an environment, indeed, a mappable environment for mental activity to occur, none of the ingredients in this list, alone or in combinations, can, as far as is known, spontaneously produce thought, or even the slightest bit of sensory awareness. They can combine to transmit electrical impulses, but electrical impulses do not think. In short, nothing in the brain can bear witness to its own existence. The brain lives its short life trapped inside of a dark calcium box, riding around on the top of one's shoulders.

When a person talks about rebirth in the Buddhist sense, this is not the same things as the Hindu notion of "reincarnation". which asserts a perpetual self that keeps aligning itself with flesh (that's the Carne part of reincarnation). A link was provided here to a secular Buddhist blog on which appears a picture, I think, borrowed from the Hari Krishnas, a picture illustrating reincarnation, showing a single person morrphing through life and through one life to the next.

If you don't believe in that, then you are in good company here. That is not the buddhist notion of rebirth.
If you ask why "you" have a certain condition in life and not somebody else, there is a problem in answering this, because it suggests an inherent existence of "I" to which the conditions apply, or which is defined by, or composed of those conditions.

If one asserts there is an "I" then of course, within that framework, the question of one life vs. many lifetimes of that "I" becomes a reasonable question. However, if one asserts what is fundamental to the Buddhist view, that nothing can be shown to exist which can truly be called "Me" or "mine", then there is nothing to reincarnate.
Rebirth of that "me" doesn't occur.
For that matter, even this birth we are living out now did not occur as any kind of inherent "me" that got born.
So, the problem then comes up when we compare the idea of other "realms" such as hungry ghosts or whatever, to the notion of the "Me" realm that we experience right now.

Rebirth occurs. But it is not a reincarnation of the "me" that we think is happening right now.

Rebirth, in the buddhist sense, is more of a domino effect. with infinite, dependently arising dominoes.
It's also sort of like taking a jigsaw puzzle out of the box, putting the pieces together, taking it apart again, mixing the pieces up and putting them in another box. The picture only appears when the pieces come together. Except in Buddhism, the pieces interract with the environment and change a little bit each time you do the puzzle.

So, what is it that gets reborn, if not an "I"?

It is the stream of infinite conditions (out of which this brief experience we call 'this life' is only a temporary arrangement) which maintain the same paths until interrupted, until their courses are altered. That's the karma part. You can change your stuff. There is no 'self" which leaves one body and enters another. But there are causes, the very same causes, and results, which constantly replicate themselves (with some constant tweaking as well) that are quite observable in this life.

Who you were when you were born is dead. A dead baby. Every cell that made up that baby has died and has been replaced. They didn't all die all at once, of course. So you see, you have already experienced karmic rebirth. "Karmic" might be used, to mean that all the new cells inherited a lot of the the characteristics of previous cells. Your eye color probably hasn't changed much during your life. And this is only the physical body, the carbon and so forth. And as any physicist can tell you, that stuff has been around since the "beginning of the Universe".

But that's only the physical part. A constant flow of what we experience as "thoughts" has also come and gone, each one influenced by the previous one. That is the actual application of the word "Karma", to your thoughts.

"Thinking", as we know it in a relative sense, as we map it in brain study labs, is dependent on a bodily environment, a brain. But the causes of thinking, or of cognitive awareness, of being to witness brain activity itself, do not rely on a physical body.
.
.
.

[gregkavarnos]

Your understanding of my understanding is what's thin. I do not say that there is no dukkha -- I say that there is dukkha. I do not say that there is no path to the end of dukkha -- I say that there is a path to the end of dukkha.

This is the third time I am asking you the same question: how, given that all beings have only one lifetime and then kaput, how can an animal, for example, follow the path that ends suffering when in this one lifetime they cannot follow the path that ends suffering because they do not have the degree of sentience required to follow the path? This is where your theory falls flat on its face: it is exclusive and lacks compassion.

Oh no jive. I reckon (1) that becoming liberated is a process that takes effort and study and everyone has to start somewhere, and not everyone gets instant enlightenment which is why there are levels and (2) that he is making specific references with his returners -- to DO, actually. But the connection there is complex (you'd probably need to read the full paper to have the background to understand what I'd want to say about stream enterers and returners and arahats).

Nonsensical gibberish. This says absolutely nothing. If the Buddha taught that there are stream enterers that will return for no more than seven more rebirths, once returners, etc... that means either he was talking s**t (incredibly unlikely) or he was referring to literal rebirth (the most likely).

Sorry? I can't and don't what? Explain DO without recourse to past lives or karma? I did, actually, but perhaps you missed it?

No I didn't miss it, I saw it alright. It was a weak and untenable position to say the least.

I said that what I mean by "karma" isn't the same as what you mean by "karma".

What I say about karma is what the Buddha says about karma. I am not making it up as I go along, I am relying on the teachings of an enlightened being.

I demonstrated this when I said:
(1) It is about "old karma" in the sense that we come into the world with certain underlying tendencies

Where do the underlying tendencies come from? Oh wait, that's right, it's all genetic. Yes, if I remember correctly, you were completely incapable of answering any of the questions I put to you regarding this theory.

(2) it is about the way we make "new karma" by acting on those tendencies when we are able to make other choices.

Yes, well, nothing new there really, I think the Buddha said that some 2500 years ago actually.

(3) But the actions we take are those we can observe,

I am sure that you have engaged in countless actions that you never observed the full consequences of. I know I have.

...that are within our control...

You mean intention?

...if we are but educated to understand the issues (thereby ending ignorance), and the consequences of those actions...

I'll take it you are talking about wholesome vs unwholesome actions here.

...are those we can see for ourselves quite clearly -- within this very lifetime.

Except we do not always see the consequences quite clearly in this lifetime. Actually you may find that only a fully enlightened being can see the full consequences of every action.

Then I'm being my most precise, I actually don't use karma in explaining DO -- I notice the Buddha doesn't use karma when he's describing DO either

Hogwash. What is craving, clinging and becoming then?

...it's more about dukkha, its causes, impermanence, and how to end it than it is about karma (particularly karma in relation to rebirth)...

You just used karma and rebirth to explain DO while proudly boasting you don't use karma and rebirth to explain DO.
Seek professional help.

[nowheat]

I'd like to hear thoughts on Navayana Buddhism. Is this something you identify with? Disagree with? Are there other lineages of Buddhism that already reflect this kind of practice?

I do want to apologize to you, LightSeed, for hijacking your thread. I had a look around and didn't find anything particularly focusing on Secular Buddhism and, since SB was mentioned on the first page of this thread, figured I'd stick my head in to the room to see if an actual living example would be heard or not, or whether it's just more fun slapping straw men around. If you'd prefer I take this elsewhere, I will.

[conebeckham]

The only thing that unravels is the traditional understanding; this isn't the same as the Dharma unraveling. The Buddha's dharma makes perfect sense without literal, after-death rebirth, and with karma being something we can see in action in this very life. This can be very hard to see, though, when one's understanding of Buddhism is entirely based on the traditional take.

Your reformed ideology is no longer Buddhism.

It is not your Buddhism, no. It is not the most popular Buddhism in the world, no. It's not what you define as Buddhism? Fine. But your definition of Buddhism is empty. (I believe this is what Dana was trying to say back a page or so.)

Really? Wow.

All Buddhism is empty, Nowheat. But some "Buddhisms" are more empty than others, you know?
Good luck with your project.

[LightSeed]

I'd like to hear thoughts on Navayana Buddhism. Is this something you identify with? Disagree with? Are there other lineages of Buddhism that already reflect this kind of practice?

I do want to apologize to you, LightSeed, for hijacking your thread. I had a look around and didn't find anything particularly focusing on Secular Buddhism and, since SB was mentioned on the first page of this thread, figured I'd stick my head in to the room to see if an actual living example would be heard or not, or whether it's just more fun slapping straw men around. If you'd prefer I take this elsewhere, I will.

No apology necessary. Carry on, my friend.

[nowheat]

Do you have any idea of how many times people more erudite than you tried to prove yours and similar interpretations of the Buddhadharma and failed to a few of us present in this thread?
I've read so many times those same arguments, plus the suttas they use to sustain them (you still haven't got to that part, but I'm sure you will ) and all that, that I lost count already. I'm not even going to say how many times Namdrol defeated, again and again, that sort of argumentation. When I say defeated, I mean really crushed. Those are old news, you see?

You are wasting time, not because we have our minds made, but because you argue an impossible cause. I hope some day you realize that.
But other than that you seem a very nice guy and that I appreciate a lot. Keep posting your arguments if you want, but this is a debate you won't win.
Not from a Buddhist perspective at least.

Well, that's it for me. You guys enjoy!

I guess there's no point in me addressing an answer to DN, here, since he has gracefully bowed out of the conversation, but I did want to point out that the concept of "heard one argument for alternative DO, heard them all" is an empty concept. This, too, is what the Buddha was trying to tell us: take each instance as fresh, don't pre-judge it. And yet I'm told the reason I will fail in getting my understanding through isn't closed minds. Hmmm. It certainly seems to be the first cause; if we can't get past that, the argument can't be heard at all, and can't be judged on its merits, but only on the merits of arguments made previously by others.

because I do bow to that which is holy in you and I say it so you'll know it, and I say it so I'll remember it.

[Caz]

I wonder do people actually know how dangerous it is to spread wrong views, With wrong views the path to liberation is closed. More Samsara.

[Josef]

I wonder do people actually know how dangerous it is to spread wrong views, With wrong views the path to liberation is closed. More Samsara.

They don't think it's wrong view.
Which oddly enough is good. If they knew it was wrong view and still worked to convince others to share it the situation would be far worse.
It is however a good way to continue in samsara, since the root of both wrong view and samsara is ignorance.

[nowheat]

hello nowheat. (is it no wheat, or now heat?)

Hello Padma, yes, it's "no wheat", thanks for asking.

Even though not all creatures experience dhukkha on an intellectual or even rudimentary conceptual level, they do experience it on some level, and this can be seen because they show a preference for one type of situation over another. For example, moths are attracted to light. Flies attempt to avoid being swatted, and so on. Even microbes may "attracted" to heat and moisture. They may not think "I am suffering" if they don't find it. Their lifespans may only be for a few hours anyway, and they may not feel discomfort as we know it, but they are still struggling to survive and hopefully to reproduce.
They are always in a state of striving.

Thanks for engaging in conversation rather than taking up the argumentative styles used by so many others; appreciate it.

I understand what you say above as an excellent representation of traditional views of dukkha that would, I believe, be seen that way in all three major schools of Buddhism.

If you were to replace the word "dukkha" with "suffering", above, I would agree with it also, but without any need to make reference to Buddhism at all.

Returning to Buddhism, I would say that "dukkha" (as I understand it, not as I understand the traditions understanding it) does not include the "suffering" above. In my non-traditional understanding, aversion and attraction that are just about survival, and not about concepts of self, are not dukkha. What the Buddha is describing in DO is what dukkha is, and how it comes to be, and because of their impermanence, the possibility of its ending, and by giving such a detailed account, the cure becomes visible to us. Dukkha starts with ignorance that is curable; creatures that are not capable of being ignorant in a way that is curable for them do not suffer dukkha.

I share some of your way of thinking. maybe this will help bridge some differences in understanding... nothing in the brain can bear witness to its own existence.

That none of the component parts, or the base-level processes, are capable of self-awareness does not mean that the sum of the components are incapable. Neither the ink itself nor the pen casing is capable of writing, but put them together in the right way and they become a great tool for the job.

When a person talks about rebirth in the Buddhist sense, this is not the same things as the Hindu notion of "reincarnation". which asserts a perpetual self that keeps aligning itself with flesh (that's the Carne part of reincarnation). A link was provided here to a secular Buddhist blog on which appears a picture, I think, borrowed from the Hari Krishnas, a picture illustrating reincarnation, showing a single person morrphing through life and through one life to the next.

If you don't believe in that, then you are in good company here. That is not the buddhist notion of rebirth.

We are agreed on this, all the way around. I understand that Hindu sorts of reincarnation are not what the Buddha was talking about -- that the traditions don't think of it in the Hindu way, nor do I.

If you ask why "you" have a certain condition in life and not somebody else, there is a problem in answering this... If one asserts there is an "I" then of course, within that framework, the question of one life vs. many lifetimes of that "I" becomes a reasonable question... Rebirth of that "me" doesn't occur.

I understand this from the traditional perspective, and my non-traditional understanding agrees with it too.

But the question "If it comes from karma, why do I suffer from celiac disease" is using "I" as a convention, not a dogmatic assertion of a permanent self. The person I was speaking to was using the same conventions; I try to frame my questions and comments within the same style of the person I'm engaging with.

I was asking how it comes to be that in this existence, the results of someone else's existence gives this set of conditions celiac disease. My point was that he was dismissing the conditions I was talking about as "just luck" and I was waiting for him to explain to me what it is about the karmic situation that makes the karmic result not "just luck". There is no person in the past who is tied to this person in the present, so what is the mechanism -- not random chance aka "luck" -- that gives the result "celiac disease" to the particular set of conditions typing at this keyboard. (I note that I have not yet gotten an answer.)

So, what is it that gets reborn, if not an "I"?

It is the stream of infinite conditions (out of which this brief experience we call 'this life' is only a temporary arrangement) which maintain the same paths until interrupted, until their courses are altered. That's the karma part. You can change your stuff. There is no 'self" which leaves one body and enters another. But there are causes, the very same causes, and results, which constantly replicate themselves (with some constant tweaking as well) that are quite observable in this life.

Who you were when you were born is dead. A dead baby. Every cell that made up that baby has died and has been replaced. They didn't all die all at once, of course. So you see, you have already experienced karmic rebirth. "Karmic" might be used, to mean that all the new cells inherited a lot of the the characteristics of previous cells. Your eye color probably hasn't changed much during your life. And this is only the physical body, the carbon and so forth. And as any physicist can tell you, that stuff has been around since the "beginning of the Universe".

But that's only the physical part. A constant flow of what we experience as "thoughts" has also come and gone, each one influenced by the previous one. That is the actual application of the word "Karma", to your thoughts.

"Thinking", as we know it in a relative sense, as we map it in brain study labs, is dependent on a bodily environment, a brain. But the causes of thinking, or of cognitive awareness, of being to witness brain activity itself, do not rely on a physical body.

I was with you right up to that paragraph.

When you can show me brain waves (which measure the activity "thinking") independent of a body, I'll agree it's possible. But perhaps that is not what you're saying. Perhaps you're saying that there is more that goes into thinking than just a physical body? I would agree with that -- that, for example, sensory input is required. Or, for another example, that exposure to other's ideas causes thinking (but of course, in the Buddhadharma, mind-objects are sense objects, so I was being a bit redundant, there).

[nowheat]

This is the third time I am asking you the same question

Please note that I am not stubbornly refusing to answer your question (as your "third time" might imply) -- I am doing my best to answer you.

how, given that all beings have only one lifetime and then kaput, how can an animal, for example, follow the path that ends suffering when in this one lifetime they cannot follow the path that ends suffering because they do not have the degree of sentience required to follow the path? This is where your theory falls flat on its face: it is exclusive and lacks compassion.

First up, I don't get to design the universe, so if what I'm describing seems to you to be exclusive and lacking in compassion, it's not my personal choice. If I ruled the universe, it would be filled with compassion.

But look at it this way: all those creatures of lower sentience don't experience dukkha to begin with. In the traditional Buddhist universe, they suffer dukkha and have to work many lifetimes to overcome it. Which is the more compassionate? No dukkha for most beings, only dukkha for those who create it themselves? Or lots of dukkha for all beings, dukkha that comes at them from conditions not under their control?

Nonsensical gibberish. This says absolutely nothing. If the Buddha taught that there are stream enterers that will return for no more than seven more rebirths, once returners, etc... that means either he was talking s**t (incredibly unlikely) or he was referring to literal rebirth (the most likely).

Or there is more to what the Buddha was saying than you've yet understood -- specifically, the context of his times.

What I say about karma is what the Buddha says about karma. I am not making it up as I go along, I am relying on the teachings of an enlightened being.

Me too. Funny how that still doesn't put us on the same page.

Where do the underlying tendencies come from? Oh wait, that's right, it's all genetic.

Do you not believe in genetics?

Yes, if I remember correctly, you were completely incapable of answering any of the questions I put to you regarding this theory.

I'm completely capable -- I'm just wordy, and it's not a simple subject. Also I'm in no great hurry to answer. Plus, I suspect only small, bite-sized pieces will be digestible by those who have proven predisposed to misunderstand what I'm saying.

Yes, well, nothing new there really, I think the Buddha said that some 2500 years ago actually.

Wow, we agree on something.

(3) But the actions we take are those we can observe,

I am sure that you have engaged in countless actions that you never observed the full consequences of. I know I have.

Quite true. And your point is?

...that are within our control...

You mean intention?

I mean actions that are within our control.

...if we are but educated to understand the issues (thereby ending ignorance), and the consequences of those actions...

I'll take it you are talking about wholesome vs unwholesome actions here.

Actually I'm talking about the end of wholesome and unwholesome (ala MN 78).

...are those we can see for ourselves quite clearly -- within this very lifetime.

Except we do not always see the consequences quite clearly in this lifetime. Actually you may find that only a fully enlightened being can see the full consequences of every action.

Yes, we do not always see the consequences. I didn't say that we see all the consequences. And I will agree that there are consequences that go beyond this lifetime -- it's just that (obviously) those consequences that go beyond this lifetime don't apply to *me* or even (to address Padma's point) what we humans tend to perceive as being "me". Some of the consequences of my actions here and now will surely extend into the future and those effects will be felt by many -- that's actually a critical point: the concern with my actions affecting the many should be greater than concern for how my karma affects "me" in the future (especially since there ain't no "me" in the future).

Then I'm being my most precise, I actually don't use karma in explaining DO -- I notice the Buddha doesn't use karma when he's describing DO either

Hogwash. What is craving, clinging and becoming then?

Craving is craving for confirmation of the existence of self, a confirmation that we look for and believe we find in our experiences; clinging is developing views (based on our experiences) that feed the sense that there is a lasting self and that the things we do to nurture and protect that "self" will lead to the good outcome we want for ourselves; becoming is the way those opinions shape our sense of self which (you didn't ask about birth but I'll carry on anyway) results in our sense of self becoming (there's that word again) a visible manifestation of our beliefs through our actions.

...it's more about dukkha, its causes, impermanence, and how to end it than it is about karma (particularly karma in relation to rebirth)...

You just used karma and rebirth to explain DO while proudly boasting you don't use karma and rebirth to explain DO.

And I do it all for you, because you are concerned about karma. I can also do the whole DO without it -- as I have said I can -- but I'm still talking to you about it from the perspective of karma. I am trying to learn from the Buddha's methods, because he had amazing skill at talking to people within the framework they were familiar with. I doubt I'll ever be as good at it as he was though.

Seek professional help.

You're a riot -- ever consider a career on stage?

[PadmaVonSamba]

In my non-traditional understanding, aversion and attraction that are just about survival, and not about concepts of self, are not dukkha.

Well the thing is, "conceptual" is just one part of the process. It's a component. It is particular to the human experience perhaps more than to other beings, and it only occurs to those humans who have the brain function to experience it. A severely cognitively disabled person may not think "me" but can still experience the suffering of being cold, or hungry or abused. Consider what happens when you accidentally hit your finger,. It is a direct experience of "me" hurting. No conceptualizing needed. The experience of self does not have to be conceptual. A being does not have to think "me" in order to suffer from the experience of clinging to the self-experience, to run when being pursued by a hungry animal. All beings, in their own way, seek freedom from their own version of suffering, and that suffering comes from some level of experience of "self".

That none of the component parts, or the base-level processes, are capable of self-awareness does not mean that the sum of the components are incapable. Neither the ink itself nor the pen casing is capable of writing, but put them together in the right way and they become a great tool for the job.

Well, I prefer the analogy of music coming from a saxophone. there is no music present in the saxophone itself. It must be both played, heard by an ear and experienced by the mind. Pen and paper, like brain matter, does not experience what is produced using it. Please show me how the sum of the component parts of anything made of physical matter can generate cognitive function. Robots and computers can come very close, but they only perform a series of functions that simulate cognition, even ones that rearrange their data. If you try to find 'who" is the computer analyzing its own processes, it cannot be found. same with humans.

I was asking how it comes to be that in this existence, the results of someone else's existence gives this set of conditions celiac disease.

There is a flaw here. Again you are seeing the hypothetical "previous person" as a 'self'. there is no "someone else". There is only the accumulation of events that we may refer to as a specific person.

Sometimes you hear people say that if you have a certain condition it's because of some positive or negative action in a past life, and they put some value on that. So, if you suffer from a condition you must have done something bad. Or, as you suggest, as if somebody a long time ago did something bad and now you are paying for it. That is a very simplistic understanding. That is not really what karma is about. That kind of view still asserts a previous "self" that gets punished or rewarded. In some cultures, people say that if you are born female it is the result of some negative deed "you" did in the past.

Anything can labelled as an affliction, and then a person can say "you did something good' or "you did something bad" but one person's misfortune is another person's opportunity. It is not the conditions which result from karma. Some texts are quoted to suggest otherwise, but the point is often missed.

If there is no "me" or "you" how can this be? Ultimately there is not. But there is the apparent reality of one's experience. It is how you regard your situation which is "your karma". It is that apparent reality which makes up this realm or that, this lifetime or that lifetime. If you are greedy in a past life, maybe you will be needy in this one. But does this mean you will not have money? No. A millionaire can still feel he or she does not have enough money. A dictator still doesn't have enough political power. You can be greedy in a past life and be born into a wealthy family in this life. But you will experience it as not enough.

tell me, Who has the celiac disease, you, or your digestive system?
(by the way I have a GREAT no dairy/no wheat cake recipe if you want it).
.
.
.

[nowheat]

Well the thing is, "conceptual" is just one part of the process. It's a component. It is particular to the human experience perhaps more than to other beings, and it only occurs to those humans who have the brain function to experience it. A severely cognitively disabled person may not think "me" but can still experience the suffering of being cold, or hungry or abused. Consider what happens when you accidentally hit your finger. It is a direct experience of "me" hurting. No conceptualizing needed. The experience of self does not have to be conceptual. A being does not have to think "me" in order to suffer from the experience of clinging to the self-experience, to run when being pursued by a hungry animal. All beings, in their own way, seek freedom from their own version of suffering, and that suffering comes from some level of experience of "self".

I would be interested in hearing how you perceive the relationship between the "ignorance" that's in the first step of dependent origination, and non-conceptual mental processes.

Well, I prefer the analogy of music coming from a saxophone. there is no music present in the saxophone itself. It must be both played, heard by an ear and experienced by the mind. Pen and paper, like brain matter, does not experience what is produced using it. Please show me how the sum of the component parts of anything made of physical matter can generate cognitive function.

I'm not a scientist, so I can't *show* you anything, but when the component parts of the brain are severely damaged, cognitive function ceases. The link between the two has been evident for quite a long time.

Robots and computers can come very close, but they only perform a series of functions that simulate cognition, even ones that rearrange their data. If you try to find 'who" is the computer analyzing its own processes, it cannot be found. same with humans.

I disagree that robots and computers come very close. I agree that there is no self to be found analyzing cognitive processing. It's clear to me from my practice that there are many component processes that combine to give a sense of a lasting self. I can also understand, from a historical and scientific perspective, why it would be that these many component processes generate that sense of self -- evolution would quite naturally lead to the sort of complexity that develops that sense of self as a method of preserving the organism that passes on the genes.

I was asking how it comes to be that in this existence, the results of someone else's existence gives this set of conditions celiac disease.

There is a flaw here. Again you are seeing the hypothetical "previous person" as a 'self'. there is no "someone else". There is only the accumulation of events that we may refer to as a specific person.

Sometimes you hear people say that if you have a certain condition it's because of some positive or negative action in a past life, and they put some value on that. So, if you suffer from a condition you must have done something bad. Or, as you suggest, as if somebody a long time ago did something bad and now you are paying for it. That is a very simplistic understanding. That is not really what karma is about. That kind of view still asserts a previous "self" that gets punished or rewarded. In some cultures, people say that if you are born female it is the result of some negative deed "you" did in the past.

Anything can labelled as an affliction, and then a person can say "you did something good' or "you did something bad" but one person's misfortune is another person's opportunity. It is not the conditions which result from karma. Some texts are quoted to suggest otherwise, but the point is often missed.

You are making my point for me, thank you.

If there is no "me" or "you" how can this be? Ultimately there is not. But there is the apparent reality of one's experience. It is how you regard your situation which is "your karma".

Yes, that, too, is what I am saying.

It is that apparent reality which makes up this realm or that, this lifetime or that lifetime. If you are greedy in a past life, maybe you will be needy in this one.

Who is this "you"?

But does this mean you will not have money? No. A millionaire can still feel he or she does not have enough money. A dictator still doesn't have enough political power. You can be greedy in a past life and be born into a wealthy family in this life. But you will experience it as not enough.

"You" who?

tell me, Who has the celiac disease, you, or your digestive system?

Answer to my mother? I do. Buddhist answer? Celiac disease has celiac disease. Thinking thinks, feeling feels, cognition cogitates, sankhara sankharas. So many little processes running. Processes process.

(by the way I have a GREAT no dairy/no wheat cake recipe if you want it).

Appreciated, but we've been doing this diet long enough now that we've got cakes licked.

[tobes]

I don't wish to enter this debate, I suppose because I find both positions somewhat problematic.

But just to stir the pot a bit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ve-america

[Caz]

I wonder do people actually know how dangerous it is to spread wrong views, With wrong views the path to liberation is closed. More Samsara.

They don't think it's wrong view.
Which oddly enough is good. If they knew it was wrong view and still worked to convince others to share it the situation would be far worse.
It is however a good way to continue in samsara, since the root of both wrong view and samsara is ignorance.

Gee its pretty clear in the Sutta's what is wrong view, Then again I know people who select the bits they like and Ignore the bits they don't so why should I be surprised.

[gregkavarnos]

Please note that I am not stubbornly refusing to answer your question (as your "third time" might imply) -- I am doing my best to answer you.

yes, but within the narrow confines of your wrong view you will not find an answer.

First up, I don't get to design the universe, so if what I'm describing seems to you to be exclusive and lacking in compassion, it's not my personal choice.

Neither did the Buddha, but his teachings were all about compassion and the universal nature of truth (Dharma). But then again you are not a Buddha (fully enlightened being) so it is to be expected that your theory will be full of holes, I mean because you are ignorant and lack omniscience (like me). Now if you want to rely on your self-centred ignorance in order to come up with half-cocked theories that are incapable of explaining/answering simple questions then the only thing you will do is reproduce your ignorance.

But look at it this way: all those creatures of lower sentience don't experience dukkha to begin with. In the traditional Buddhist universe, they suffer dukkha and have to work many lifetimes to overcome it. Which is the more compassionate? No dukkha for most beings, only dukkha for those who create it themselves? Or lots of dukkha for all beings, dukkha that comes at them from conditions not under their control?

First Noble Truth: Life (existence) is suffering. It has nothing to do with traditional vs secular Buddhism, it has to do with Buddhism vs nowheat's ridiculous BS.

Me too. Funny how that still doesn't put us on the same page.

Your views do not accord with the teachings of the Buddha regarding karma. Like not in the slightest.

Kamma Sutta: Action
translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1997–2012
Alternate translation: Walshe
"Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.

"And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma.

"And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.

"So, monks, I have taught you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you."

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

...The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a short life: to be a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings...

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

Do you not believe in genetics?

Of course I believe in genetics, I am a behavioural scientist. But genetics is nowhere near enough to giving all the answers. That's why you were incapable of answering the questions I put to you.

Quite true. And your point is?

That just because you are not aware of the consequences of your actions (whether they be actions in the past that have given rise to your current situation or actions in the presence that you may not see the consequences of within this lifetime) does not mean that there are no consequences.

I mean actions that are within our control.

Control meaning?

Actually I'm talking about the end of wholesome and unwholesome (ala MN 78).

As long as there is ignorance there will be wholesome and unwholesome actions (karma)

Yes, we do not always see the consequences. I didn't say that we see all the consequences. And I will agree that there are consequences that go beyond this lifetime -- it's just that (obviously) those consequences that go beyond this lifetime don't apply to *me* or even (to address Padma's point) what we humans tend to perceive as being "me".

Yes they do, it just won't be this "me", it'll be a continuation of your mental continuim (the same one that flows from moment to moment pushed propelled by ignorance).

Some of the consequences of my actions here and now will surely extend into the future and those effects will be felt by many -- that's actually a critical point: the concern with my actions affecting the many should be greater than concern for how my karma affects "me" in the future (especially since there ain't no "me" in the future).

Yes, well, this is where your ignorance of the workings of karma really become blaringly obvious. Let's say that out of anger nd frustration at my unwillingness to perceive your theory as relevant you decide to kill my mother (to piss me off). well you are going to reap the consequences of that action (since it is based on anger it'll probably be a rebirth in a hell realm after I have died). If I get angry with you for killing my mother and I kill you then I will reap the consequences of that action (ditto). I will not reap the consequences of you killing my mother (though your action acted as one of the causes for my reaction, my attachment to my mother is another, my lack of ability to control my temper is another, etc...), I will reap the consequences of killing you out of anger.

Craving is craving for confirmation of the existence of self, a confirmation that we look for and believe we find in our experiences; clinging is developing views (based on our experiences) that feed the sense that there is a lasting self and that the things we do to nurture and protect that "self" will lead to the good outcome we want for ourselves; becoming is the way those opinions shape our sense of self which (you didn't ask about birth but I'll carry on anyway) results in our sense of self becoming (there's that word again) a visible manifestation of our beliefs through our actions.

Hogwash, yet again. There are three doors of action (karma): mind, speech and body. Craving and clinging are karma of mind, becoming is karma of body. You have no idea what you are talking about.

And I do it all for you, because you are concerned about karma. I can also do the whole DO without it -- as I have said I can -- but I'm still talking to you about it from the perspective of karma. I am trying to learn from the Buddha's methods, because he had amazing skill at talking to people within the framework they were familiar with. I doubt I'll ever be as good at it as he was though.

No, you recourse to karma (action) and rebirth because there is no other way to explain DO. You have deluded yourself into believing that you have come up with a new explanation but you have not because you cannot (not being enlightened and all...)

You're a riot -- ever consider a career on stage?

No, I don't have the time to memorise large tracts of useless garbage (nor the mental capacity).

[Dechen Norbu]

Just as a reminder,

This is Dharma Wheel, a Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Not Fantasy Wheel, a Personal Theory discussion forum on Revised and Reformulated Buddhism.

Even the Dharma-free-for-all is a subforum about Dharma, where one is given the chance to prove his ideas are Buddhist. Not being the case, such ideas are outside the scope of the board. Promoting them here, once they were successfully refuted and this, again, means proving they are not Buddhist, not proving them wrong, might be considered trolling.

I just say this so that when you fellows present an idea and say something like "Hey, this is my Buddhism", we don't really care. The point is if it is according to Buddhist teachings. Otherwise anyone with a version of Dharma would come here to explain it and there would be no Buddhism left in this board. Perhaps we would have guys explaining why Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are Bodhisattvas and that would be very funny, but we need to keep some sense of coherence.

So make your points and address criticism in an honest way. If you have no evidence to show that Buddha meant this or that teaching metaphorically, and that means his admission, or that you can't derive this or that idea from widely accepted Buddhist teachings, then accept that you are speculating and just giving your opinion. Easy. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. It's just not entitled to impose it as being Buddhist to others.

We need some ground rules you see? People can't say that this or that idea is Buddhist and when others show it isn't, they are ignored.

So, debate as you wish, but address criticism properly. Otherwise you'll force me to moderate the discussion and I really wouldn't like to do that.