the great rebirth debate

[Dhammanando]

Penguin,

What exactly defines the human realm?

There are quite a few definitions of the human realm. My favourite is found in a Vinaya sub-commentary: that realm of beings for whom the brahmacariyā is a possibility.

Is it just based on the appearance of four-limbed bipedal intelligent primates,

In the Mahānidāna Sutta's teaching on the seven stations of consciousness humans are classed among those beings who are "variegated in body and variegated in perception." But nothing is stated about precisely how variegated human bodies can be. Nor about how much a being might differ from apes like you or me while still counting as a human.

"Four-limbed bipedal intelligent primates" won't really do as a definition. A primate is a mammal and a mammal is an animal that suckles its young. But in the Mahāsīhanāda Sutta (MN. 12) although conception in a womb is the typical way of generation for humans, there are said to be certain humans who are "spontaneously-generated" (opapātika). That is to say, they just spring up fully-grown and presumably would need no suckling. What spontaneously-generated humans might look like, and in what biological class, order and genus they might fit, is anyone's guess.

My own guess is that they probably look rather like ourselves but without belly-buttons.

Or if they do have belly-buttons they will be of the non-functional sort like the Brahmā gods' non-functional noses and tongues (materiality that looks to all purposes like a nose or a tongue, but is not able to serve as the physical basis of olfactory or gustatory consciousness).

or more so on our sapience and sentience, and the balance of both suffering and happiness in the realm.

The texts sometimes hint at something along these lines. For example, a common commentarial definition of humans is the pun, manaso ussannattā 'manussā' ti ("They are called 'humans' because of their superiority of mind" MA. ii. 37). But strictly speaking this is not a definition of humans but only a nirukti of the word "human".

would a species of intelligent reptilian hominids constitute a portion of the "human realm"?

I don't see why not, especially as we seem already to have an instantiation of this in the person of the current U.S. Secretary of State.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando

[DNS]

I don't see why not, especially as we seem already to have an instantiation of this in the person of the current U.S. Secretary of State.

Hi Bhante,

Great to see you here again! Are you back for regular posting?

[Dhammanando]

Hi David,

Hi Bhante,

Great to see you here again! Are you back for regular posting?

Thanks for the welcome. I'm afraid I won't be back for regular posting just yet, as I'm going back up the mountain in a few days. I came down down because a whole bunch of friends from different places all decided to visit me at the same time, and I couldn't have accomodated them in my usual abode.

All the best for the coming year!

Dhammanando

[Nibbida]

Good to see you here Bhante, even if only for a bit.

Much Metta.

[danieLion]

Deletd by poster.

[Spiny O'Norman]

Except "living in the present moment" has to include an understanding of causality.

Yes, it certainly helps to understand how the present moment has arisen.

Spiny

[kirk5a]

Except "living in the present moment" has to include an understanding of causality.

Yes, it certainly helps to understand how the present moment has arisen.

Spiny

I meant becoming aware of the causality of craving/clinging in creating suffering. What do you mean?

[Ludwig]

Thanks for your responses, I also viewed a clear answer from a series of Retro's comments on another thread (after my original post).

Cheers.

[Spiny O'Norman]

Except "living in the present moment" has to include an understanding of causality.

Yes, it certainly helps to understand how the present moment has arisen.

Spiny

I meant becoming aware of the causality of craving/clinging in creating suffering. What do you mean?

Yes, certainly that, but also more generally - for example how our current mind-state ( which is dependently originated ) determines the way we experience the present.

Spiny

[hermitwin]

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What is your opinion on his work?

[Moggalana]

As far as I know, his work is based on anecdotal evidence and that's not really a scientific proof. And then there is this:

Stevenson never claimed that he had proved the existence of reincarnation, and cautiously referred to his cases as being "of the reincarnation type" or "suggestive of reincarnation".[13] He concluded that "reincarnation is the best — even though not the only — explanation for the stronger cases we have investigated".[14]

Stevenson's work has received a mixed response. In 1977, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease devoted most of one issue to Stevenson's work and the journal's editor described Stevenson as "a methodical, careful, even cautious investigator."[8] His methodology was criticized for providing no conclusive evidence for the existence of past lives.[15] In a book review criticizing one of Stevensons' books, the reviewer raised the concern that many of Stevenson's examples were gathered in cultures with pre-existing belief in reincarnation.[16] In order to address this type of concern, Stevenson wrote European Cases of the Reincarnation Type (2003) which presented 40 cases he examined in Europe.[17] Stevenson's obituary in the New York Times stated: "Spurned by most academic scientists, Dr. Stevenson was to his supporters a misunderstood genius, bravely pushing the boundaries of science. To his detractors, he was earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition".[12]

Deducing from this research the conclusion that reincarnation is a proven fact has been listed as an example of pseudoscience by skeptics.[18] Carl Sagan and Arthur C. Clarke felt that Stevenson's work fell short of providing proof of reincarnation (which they both viewed as unlikely). Nevertheless, they felt that further research was warranted. In The Demon-Haunted World (1996), Sagan wrote that claims about reincarnation may have some experimental support, however dubious and inconclusive. He said "at the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field that deserve serious study", the third being "young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."[19][20] Sagan further stated he picked the three examples not because he thought them valid, but as examples of contentions that might be true.[21] Clarke observed that Stevenson had produced a number of studies that were "hard to explain" conventionally, then noted that accepting reincarnation raised the question of the means for personality transfer.[22] To date no physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body has been identified,[23] which researchers such as Stevenson and Tucker recognize as a limitation.[8] Skeptic Sam Harris said of Stevenson "either he is a victim of truly elaborate fraud, or something interesting is going on."[24]

Stevenson's research was the subject of Tom Shroder's Old Souls: The Scientific Evidence for Past Lives (1999) and Jim B. Tucker's Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children's Memories of Previous Lives (2005). Psychiatrist Jim Tucker took over Stevenson's work on his retirement in 2002.

Wikipedia

[perkele]

As far as I know, his work is based on anecdotal evidence and that's not really a scientific proof.

However, the anecdotes were scrutinized and verified as scientifically as possible I think and often quite compelling evidence was found in that way. For example facts about the previous family of the supposedly reborn child which the child couldn't have known without memory, etc.
I think it's as scientific as it can get, although of course there isn't a proof, in quite a similar way as the theory of general relativity is not "proven". It's just a compelling explanation.
I do think the method is scientifically valid. There's a hypothesis (this child has memories from the life of that deceased person) and methods for falsification (dependent on the circumstances of the case), although they are not as clear and "mechanical" as for example in physics.
And I find reservations like this one (quoted from your quote) slightly ridiculous:

To date no physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body has been identified,[23] which researchers such as Stevenson and Tucker recognize as a limitation.

In which sense is this considered a limitation?

Anyhow, the most important point I found in whole article (haven't read the whole thing) was this one:

I'm not much of a missionary. Most of that was drained out of me on my first trip to India. I did have a certain zeal when I first went there. When I talked to Ramakrishna Swami in Chandigarh, he asked me what I was doing, and I replied with a certain enthusiasm. After a long silence he finally said, "We know that reincarnation is true, but it doesn't make any difference because here in India we have just as many rogues and villains as you have in the West"
End of interview.

[daverupa]

To date no physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body has been identified,[23] which researchers such as Stevenson and Tucker recognize as a limitation.

In which sense is this considered a limitation?

In the sense that a scientific theory offers hypotheses to account for such processes, testable hypotheses which are then examined, and either refined or discarded; and then this process is repeated until successful predictions are able to be made on the basis of the developed model(s). Without offering a hypothesis about how such a mechanism might operate in the case of reincarnation, the research amounts to anecdotal correlation with no variable control. Making hard and fast conclusions on this sort of foundation is unwarranted.

[Justsit]

Every time a discussion of "proof of reincarnation" appears, Dr. Stevenson's work is dragged out again.

As the article states, "Stevenson never claimed that he had proved the existence of reincarnation..."

In addition, science requires reproducible results to prove a theory; one set of results proves nothing. No reproducible results = no proof.

Full stop.

[Kim OHara]

Stevenson's work has been discussed here several times - see, e.g.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 0&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... &start=920" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 70&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 36&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not saying it's right or wrong, just saving people reinventing wheels.


Kim