the great rebirth debate

[Ceisiwr]

culaavuso


"truth is relative to a conceptual scheme"


Is this the essence of your argument?

[Ceisiwr]

** All quotes from Ven. culaavuso **

Is culaavuso a monk? That'd be news to me, though not surprising given his excellent conduct.

I thought so?

[culaavuso]

It seems to be circular; "What is pragmatic is true because it works, which works because it corresponds to reality and so its pragmatic which makes it true ..."

You cant make use of something that doesnt work. Furthermore "usefulness" as a measure of truth is ambiguous, since "what works" depends on subjective interpretation. Wiccans find "wands" useful, and a group of them agree that they are useful and practical, yet that doesnt mean that the wands or the Wiccan religion is "true" ontologically. It would seem to be pure subjective delusion, which a group of like minded people can mistake for truth. Truth can only have meaning if it means something outside of ourselves, with all our petty prejudices and desires.

There is no need to say why it works. It is pragmatic because given a practical goal, it can be used to achieve the goal. Whether it yields success towards that goal or not can be seen by trying. A pragmatic truth relies only on an observation of orderliness and predictable regularity to experience; it is not necessary to make assumptions about what mechanism might provide this order. The question of whether wands are useful can be meaningfully addressed with proper statistical methods and inter-subjective observation without the need to bring ontological mechanisms in to the discussion.

Circularity is interestingly one of the common objections to the correspondence theory of truth, as well. The correspondence theory assumes that there is something outside of ourselves, but relies on our own subjective experience to determine that there is something outside of ourselves. This appears to be why Popper speaks of inter-subjective rather than objective truth: what we call "objective" is said to be so merely because it is subjectively observed from various perspectives. If there is a truth apart from experience, how could this be known or verified? If it requires experience to be known, how is it distinguishable from a man-made theory that simply provides useful predictions of experience?

Either the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers some accompanying theory of the world, or he or she does not.

If no theory of the world is offered, the argument is so vague as to be useless or even unintelligible: truth would then be supposed to be correspondence to some undefined, unknown or ineffable world. It is difficult to see how a candidate truth could be more certain than the world we are to judge its degree of correspondence against.

On the other hand, immediately the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers a theory of the world, he or she is operating in some specific ontological or scientific theory, which stands in need of justification. But the only way to support the truth of this theory of the world that is allowed by the correspondence theory of truth is correspondence to the real world. Hence the argument is circular.

Regarding the idea that science asserts ontological mechanisms it may be informative to consider the words of Richard Feynman:

You will say to me, 'Yes, you told us what happens, but what is gravity? Where does it come from? What is it? Do you mean to tell me that a planet looks at the sun, sees how far it is, calculates the inverse square of the distance and then decides to move in accordance with that law?' In other words, although I have stated the mathematical law, I have given no clue about the mechanism.
...
Mathematically each of the three different formulations, Newton's law, the local field method and the minimum principle, gives exactly the same consequences. What do we do then? You will read in all the books that we cannot decide scientifically on one or the other. That is true. They are equivalent scientifically. It is impossible to make a decision, because there is no experimental way to distinguish between them if all the consequences are the same.

There is always the possibility of proving any definite theory wrong; but notice that we can never prove it right. Suppose that you invent a good guess, calculate the consequences, and discover every time that the consequences you have calculated agree with experiment. The theory is then right? No, it is simply not proved wrong. In the future you could compute a wider range of consequences, there could be a wider range of experiments, and you might then discover that the thing is wrong. That is why laws like Newton's laws for the motion of planets last such a long time. He guessed the law of gravitation, calculated all kinds of consequences for the system and so on, compared them with experiment - and it took several hundred years before the slight error of the motion of Mercury was observed. During all that time the theory had not been proved wrong, and could be taken temporarily to be right. But it could never be proved right, because tomorrow's experiment might succeed in proving wrong what you thought was right. We are never definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong.

"truth is relative to a conceptual scheme"

Truth is a word with several different definitions. Skepticism towards any claim of truth is useful to avoid being blindsided by the consequences of unquestioned assumptions. In terms of the Dhamma, the relevant question regarding a claim of truth seems to be the question of how it will shape intentional actions and what consequences those actions might bring about.

Is culaavuso a monk? That'd be news to me, though not surprising given his excellent conduct.

I thought so?

I live as a householder, not a monk.

[Pondera]

When I observe a bridge from afar, it is dukkha that allows for this. When I observe it from near, it is that same dukkha which provides for this. The size of the bridge, in terms of dukkha, does not change when I observe it from near or far. This is what allows me to observe the "actual" size of the bridge.

These realities explain both how gravity and rebirth exist. But I would be killing the thread if I said anything else. So

How can a simple observation of a bridge be dukkha?

In the presense of dukkha, my eye clings to the perception of the object. In the absense of dukkha there is no clinging to the object.

[Spiny Norman]

Your distinctive opinions will be assimilated into our own. Resistance to the rebirth thread is futile

Indeed, it's unstoppable and relentless.

[Ron-The-Elder]

Indeed, it's unstoppable and relentless.

Also, samsaracly loopy

[Spiny Norman]

Indeed, it's unstoppable and relentless.

Also, samsaracly loopy

It's enough to send you loopy at times.

[Ron-The-Elder]

More often our clinging allows us to be dragged kicking and screaming around the degenerative loop: spiraling....ever spiraling....until we realize that all we have to do to end our suffering is to let go. Even Ramses II ( Yule Brynner ) eventually figured that out: "So let it be written!" "So, let it be done!"....

[waryoffolly]

I think this is relevant to the current discussion. Its describes an instrumentalist view of science that I tend to align with that seems to be similar to cuulavaso's comments.

http://thebahiyablog.blogspot.ca/2015/0 ... neath.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dr. Dukkha]

Do you go to hell in the form of a human or an animal? And do you keep your memories from that previous life? If so, how do you if your brain doesn't come with you?

I guess hell being a mental state makes the most sense, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ron-The-Elder]

Dr. Dukkha: Please correct me if I am wrong.

Only karmic effects pass on to all realms, hell realms included. Brain does not move on, but if mind is but an effect of the rest of the neurological system, perhaps it is but the ever changing, impermanent mind which moves on as but an effect.

Remember the candle stick and flame analogy. It is but the flame which moves on.

Karma

The law of Karma (Sanskrit), or Kamma (Pali) originated in the Vedic system of religion, otherwise known as Hinduism. As a term, it can at the latest be traced back to the early Upanishads, around 1500 BCE.

In its major conception, karma is the physical, mental and supramental system of neutral rebound, "cause and effect," that is inherent in existence within the bounds of time, space, and causation. Essentially what this means is that the very being which one experiences (say, as a human being) is governed by an immutable preservation of energy, vibration, and action. It is comparable to the Golden Rule but denies the ostenisble arbitrariness of Fate, Destiny, Kismet, or other such Western conceptions by attributing absolute reason and determinism to the workings of the cosmos.

Karma, for these reasons, naturally implies reincarnation since thoughts and deeds in past lives will affect one's current situation. Thus, humanity (through a sort of collective karma) and individuals alike are responsible for the tragedies and good 'fortunes' which they experience. The concept of an inscrutable "God" figure is not necessary with the idea of karma. It is vital to note that karma is not an instrument of a god, or a single God, but is rather the physical and spiritual 'physics' of being. As gravity governs the motions of heavenly bodies and objects on the surface of the earth, karma governs the motions and happenings of life, both inanimate and animate, unconscious and conscious, in the cosmic realm.

Thus, what certain philosophical viewpoints may term "destiny" or "fate" is in actuality, according to the laws of karma, the simple and neutral working out of karma. Many have likened karma to a moral banking system, a credit and debit of good and bad. However, this view falls short of the idea that any sort of action (action being a root meaning of 'karma'), whether we term it 'good' or 'bad', binds us in recurring cause and effect. In order to attain supreme consciousness, to escape the cycle of life, death, and rebirth and the knot of karma one must altogether transcend karma. This method of transcendence is variously dealt with in many streams of not only Hinduism and Buddhism, but other faiths and philosophical systems as well.

From Hinduism the concept of karma was absorbed and developed in different manners in other movements within the other Indian subcontinental (South Asian) religions of Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. Although these religions express significant disagreement regarding the particularities of "karma", all four groups have relatively similar notions of what karma is.

More recently the concept has been adopted (with various degrees of accuracy and understanding) by many New Age movements, Theosophy and Kardecist Spiritualism.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/karma.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[someguy83]

i think we unenlightened folks could go on debating endlessly about rebirth but logically speaking it looks to be true. For an enlightened person the question about whether rebirth is true or more is no more relevant.

[dhammacoustic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4lNOhxObr4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Alex123]

Hello all,

"One-life-only" implies that first moment of mind was not caused by one's kamma, and that last moment of mind will not produce any kammavipāka, no matter how defiled that mental state was.

If there is only one life, then some are born to suffer and some to enjoy luxury only due to biological, etc. chance. Some got lucky to be born with good genes, in good environment into rich family, while some are born in poverty stricken country with poor environment and sick parents... How cruel of nature!

Why belief in rebirth is helpful:
If we existed almost infinite amount of times and encountered every mundane situation, it helps psychologically to view bad situations. This life is like a lighting flash that is a brief moment of one's samsara, some of which was in highest heavens (except pure abodes) down to lowest of hells.

Through making positive kamma it is possible to improve tough circumstances if not for this life, then the next. It is not hopeless biological world where you have one shot at it and if you were born in bad circumstances, "too bad". There is hope!

Holding fixed wrong view (such as that which denies continuation of momentary mental states after death of this body) is said to be very bad kamma.

[dhammacoustic]

Holding fixed wrong view (such as that which denies continuation of momentary mental states after death of this body) is said to be very bad kamma.

Hi Alex,

how do you think that is?

I've come across such a passage, apparently from Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation;

Nātthiko go to terrible hell. They go from darkness, to darkness. - SN 1.96

Do you think that holding the annihilationist view is an intentionally established mentality? ie; is it a volitional action?