Circle5 wrote:In order to know what happens with consciousness after death, one first needs to know through what mechanism consciousness originated. If one does not know that mechanism, then he can never know if it will originate again through the same mechanism (the he does not know) or not. And today in 2017, the mystery of origination of consciousness has not been solved and is called "the hard problem of consciousness". More than this, materialism has been refuted through numerous scientific discoveries.
Understanding rebirth is one of the difficult parts of buddhism that requires first understanding other things such as no-self, how the 5 aggregates work and many more. But even for a random not knowing anything about buddhism, rebirth should be the natural, most plausible expectation. Just like you appeared in this life, you will appear again in the future through the same mechanism. Dreamily you appeared now, dreamily you will appear again. And because it's the most logical thing to expect, it has been the most popular view in ancient times at the beginning of first religions. And it is still a popular view today, about 30% of europeans believing in rebirth no matter if the country is strongly christian or strongly atheist.
If we follow the number of people who believe in this or that, we should all be Christians apparently
Christianity 2.2 billion[3] 31.50%
Islam 1.6 billion[4] 22.32%
Secular[a]/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist ≤1.1 billion 15.35%
Hinduism 1 billion 13.95%
Chinese traditional religion[c] 394 million 5.50%
Buddhism 376 million 5.25%
Re: the great rebirth debate
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:36 am
by Spiny Norman
I was looking again recently at the idea of moment-to-moment rebirth. I can see why it's a popular alternative, but does it really hold up under close examination? I'm not convinced that it does.
What is actually supposed to be "reborn" moment-to-moment? You could say that habits or tendencies are continually reborn, but by definition those persist over time, so saying they are "reborn" doesn't really make sense. You could say that "I" is continually reborn, but in the suttas the fetters of self-view and conceit look like deep-seated habits, and so the same problem applies.
Looking at the anatta doctrine, you could say we are processes rather than entities, but that means there is really nothing to be "reborn".
Also I see very little support for moment-to-moment rebirth in the suttas, where birth and death are invariably described as physical rather than purely mental events.
By the way, I'm not arguing in favour of post-mortem rebirth here. I am suggesting that many of the same difficulties apply to moment-to-moment rebirth, and that these difficulties are too often glossed over for the sake of convenience.
Your thoughts?
Re: the great rebirth debate
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:32 pm
by justindesilva
chownah wrote:
justindesilva wrote:This book is widely accepted. ........
His studies had been widely accepted ........
The book has also been widely rejected.
His studies have also been widely rejected.
chownah
If you type "rebirth stories of sri lanka" one can get webs describing many proven or studied cases in Sri Lanka of re births. Please try.
Search only proceeds with faith in words of enlightened. The main goal of all the saint are to remove the shackles of birth and death.
When he searches and found out that "I never exists". So how can which doesn't exist will have death n birth. But these wisdom only come after awakening. Hence, delusion is the common mans thinking and he revolve like there is no other world, no rebirth, let's eat n marry tomorrow we die. Death is all for them.
But for wise death is most precious of all! While common man fear for it!
Now it's your thinking whether you accept it or not!
Re: the great rebirth debate
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:30 am
by justindesilva
Unexist wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:43 pm
Search only proceeds with faith in words of enlightened. The main goal of all the saint are to remove the shackles of birth and death.
When he searches and found out that "I never exists". So how can which doesn't exist will have death n birth. But these wisdom only come after awakening. Hence, delusion is the common mans thinking and he revolve like there is no other world, no rebirth, let's eat n marry tomorrow we die. Death is all for them.
But for wise death is most precious of all! While common man fear for it!
Now it's your thinking whether you accept it or not!
The need to understand sammuti sacca against Parramatta satta is essential to understand what Lord budda preached in context with our present mode of living and damma.
Re: the great rebirth debate
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:11 pm
by Lucas Oliveira
Evidence of Reincarnation in Childhood by Dr. Jim Tucker (Full Presentation)
Re: the great rebirth debate
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:26 am
by chownah
Lucas Oliveira wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:11 pm
Evidence of Reincarnation in Childhood by Dr. Jim Tucker (Full Presentation)
.....but this isn't evidence for rebirth.....it is evidence for spiritual channeling.....these people are channeling the ghosts of the dead.....I guess....don't know for sure....
chownah
Re: the great rebirth debate
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:45 pm
by cappuccino
although we are reborn, we are not everything we once were,
we are something recent
although we are recent, we will not remain as we are,
we will change
justindesilva wrote:This book is widely accepted. ........
His studies had been widely accepted ........
The book has also been widely rejected.
His studies have also been widely rejected.
chownah
If you type "rebirth stories of sri lanka" one can get webs describing many proven or studied cases in Sri Lanka of re births. Please try.
.....but this isn't evidence for rebirth.....it is evidence for spiritual channeling.....these stories are about channeling the ghosts of the dead.....I guess....don't know for sure....
chownah
Re: the great rebirth debate
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:56 pm
by kverty
Ok so I acknowledge that this may have been debated to the point of almost an discernible beginning, but bear with me 'cause I couldn't search the thread for this specific query.
So what I understand is that there are some buddhist who believe in moment-to-moment rebirth in this life only and consequently, either rejects or remain skeptic to the occurrence of life to life rebirth until such proofs could be verified, or at least hold the view of rebirth over several life-spans is not relevant to the practice and the ultimate goal.
What I'm alluding to is that the ultimate goal, nibbana, is in itself a metaphysical event that can't be objectively proven to exist since you can't measure something that is beyond all conditioned phenomena. So while buddhist practice can bring happiness here and now, until you acknowledge that some aspects of the teaching may never be proven objectively, the practice will only take you so far but not beyond. The notion of rebirth from life-to-life may not be integral to the teaching but I see it as a puzzle that simply can't be left out in the grand scheme of understanding the workings of the Dhamma, and to simply ignore such vital aspects until it can be objectively verified (which may never happen) is a huge obstacle in ones development.
Re: the great rebirth debate
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:54 pm
by Dhammarakkhito
the body and mind are constantly arising and ceasing. rebirth is easier to accept if you dont take these stressful processes as self
do you think that it is possible that you are wrong about the reincarnation being impossible?
Craving is literally just a bunch of hormones and electrical signals... if these things could alter the universe in order to create life, scientists would've discovered this phenomenom a long time ago. Well it doesn't make any sense to begin with anyway.
do you think that it is possible that you are wrong about the reincarnation being impossible?
Craving is literally just a bunch of hormones and electrical signals... if these things could alter the universe in order to create life, scientists would've discovered this phenomenom a long time ago. Well it doesn't make any sense to begin with anyway.
So you don't think that your conviction can turn out to be false?