The problem of suffering when you don't believe in karmic rebirth

[goldisheavy]

I think I am probably way out of my depth in this aspect of the conversation but I don't see why the causes and conditions which create mind can't form when the human body forms and then change form when the body dies. All I really know from my own practice is that many of the causes for troublesome emotional states and seeds of traumas etc reside in the tensions and cellular memory of the body so it stands to reason that when you leave the body all of that will become conscious or transformed during the death process as it relies on tensions within the body to exist.

 

You're not out your depth.

 

Just consider the nature of meanings. All the things you experience, external and internal have meanings. For example, tea cup means something. It has a certain function. It's used in a certain context. You don't wear tea cups on your feet. Trees have a meaning. Trees do not swim in the ocean. Fish have meaning. Fish don't serve as light bulb filaments. Inside copper wires it is not wind that flows. Why not? Well, that's not the meaning of wind. That is not how we know wind.

 

Now, meanings only make sense in some kind of context. For example, it makes no sense for wind to blow if there is no space. Tea cups make no sense without tea. Tea makes no sense without someone to drink and enjoy it. Fish make no sense without the ocean. The ocean makes no sense without the Earth. And so on up to infinity. This context stretches infinitely and not a single meaning within the context can be called "first." There is no first. And there is no last.

 

When you were born, you recognized people. You did not confuse eyes with squid, even though if your mind were blank at birth, there is every reason to think that your perceptions should have been scrambled randomly or even absent altogether. Right from birth you had enough context to learn a few things. You learned how to walk and talk, but you did not learn what it means for a person to look directly at you. You knew that. Your mother did not have to teach you, "When my head is angled such and such, and when my eyeballs are angled such and such, that means I am looking at you." No one had to teach you this. You knew this and infinitely more from before birth, or else you'd not be able to make enough sense to learn anything. To learn new meanings you need some pre-existing context, which you had.

 

So mind does not start at birth. If the mind did not start at birth, it does not end at death.

 

You may think that something like matter exists, something that is external to mind that backs up appearances. That can be disproved also, but I am not going to do that in this post. There is nothing outside your mind. No matter. No energy. Everything you see is just the play of your consciousness like a dream or a mirage, or like a magic show. You were never born. This world was never created out of matter. Matter only appears to follow the energy conservation principle because of the mental habits you've accumulated from beginningless time, and so on.

 

Once you consider all this it is trivial to see that rebirth is a logical view.

Edited July 21, 2011 by goldisheavy

[laughingblade]

 

When you were born, you recognized people. ... you did not learn what it means for a person to look directly at you. You knew that. ... You knew this and infinitely more from before birth, or else you'd not be able to make enough sense to learn anything. To learn new meanings you need some pre-existing context, which you had.

 

So mind does not start at birth. If the mind did not start at birth, it does not end at death.

 

Once you consider all this it is trivial to see that rebirth is a logical view.

 

Jumping in at my peril ...

 

The skills/knowledge evidenced after birth do not logically imply nor require their presence before birth. In this specific example a newborn doesn't focus immediately after birth, but it takes some time for that to occur: there is development from the moment a chld opens its eyes, but no necessity for anything other than the 'physical' development in the womb as a prerequisite or basis for that to occur. So GIH your assertion that the mind is already present before birth is not proved by this argument, unless it has itself developed in the womb (which I guess is precisely not your point).

 

Elsewhere posters (esp CowTao) have reframed the OP question about karma/reincarnation away from life-to-life and towards a moment-to-moment view. I'd agree that this is a skilful practice point, but it cheekily sidesteps the questions of what reincarnates, and what reaps the fruition of alleged karmic seeds from life to life.

 

Recent conciousness studies suggest that the brain creates consciousness/mind and a spontaneous sense of self: Julian Baggini in The Ego Trick even goes as far as to interview a couple of Tibetans on the very question, and finds that they don't have memories, can't identify what it is that reincarnates, and in fact use the same cheeky arguments put forward here.

 

Personally I've experienced past-life regressions, spontaneous 'telling' of the history of certain places, others' 'chi' fields, and some very interesting states in meditation both clean and chemically assisted. So I'm very open to the idea that there is more than brain chemistry ... but the usual arguments on karma/reincarnation amount to no more than childrens' stories for a pre-rational age, and this thread so far doesn't add much.

 

And of course in practice - the question of how do I gather something of "Rich" and develop/focus/condense it so it can consciously pass from this life into another - nobody seems to have any validated authority. Maybe if I gave up the rest of my life to Vajrayana (insert a better one) practises then I might come across a living teaching where they actually know about this sort of thing and are willing to teach it. But even asking seems to get me disqualified in my experience

 

Rich

[Vajrahridaya]

 

And of course in practice - the question of how do I gather something of "Rich" and develop/focus/condense it so it can consciously pass from this life into another - nobody seems to have any validated authority. Maybe if I gave up the rest of my life to Vajrayana (insert a better one) practises then I might come across a living teaching where they actually know about this sort of thing and are willing to teach it. But even asking seems to get me disqualified in my experience

 

Rich

 

Are you available to look directly at your logical assumptions?

[laughingblade]

In the context of the logical fallacy I pointed out in GIH's post, or otherwise?

 

If you want to discuss what is or isn't a logical fallacy then probably not tbh. A fallacy is a fallacy, and it would be great to see GIH come up with a better argument for the existence of mind before birth.

 

Otherwise - I'd like to think so, but I have plenty of reactivity and blind spots.

What did you have in mind?

 

Rich

[Jetsun]

I can't quote very well on my phone but in reply to goldisheavy my knowledge from psychology is that when a baby is born it has no concept of itself or other, it perceives everything as unity so it doesn't understand someone looking at them any better than anything else. Then the instinctual drives for food and comfort etc kick in which begins the process of separating itself and relating to objects which satisfy the anxiety caused by instinctual needs. So it's mind only learns it's relationship to other things once it's born and as it's born in unity nothing has any meaning until needs kick in which need to be satisfied. I see no reason why all meanings and relations can't be learned after the arising of the mind in the womb and not before. It may get more meaning from the presence of their mother than another person but that could be because it associates the mother with the nurtuance of the womb.

 

But I do wonder what are all the causes in differences in the natural predilections of people, I remember going to Jerusalem when I was very young and I was completely fascinated by it and couldn't get enough while both my brothers just wanted to go watch tv, so something must account for these differences more than just genetics and environment I think.

[laughingblade]

But I do wonder what are all the causes in differences in the natural predilections of people

 

10^11 (one hundred billion) neurons with on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 10^15 synapses (1 quadrillion). (wikipedia)

 

and

 

"3 billion DNA base pairs" (wikipedia as well (what did you expect, real science?))

 

Don't we have to account for these before assuming non-physical non-observable causes?

Just askin'

 

Rich

[C T]

Jumping in at my peril ...

 

The skills/knowledge evidenced after birth do not logically imply nor require their presence before birth. In this specific example a newborn doesn't focus immediately after birth, but it takes some time for that to occur: there is development from the moment a chld opens its eyes, but no necessity for anything other than the 'physical' development in the womb as a prerequisite or basis for that to occur. So GIH your assertion that the mind is already present before birth is not proved by this argument, unless it has itself developed in the womb (which I guess is precisely not your point).

 

Elsewhere posters (esp CowTao) have reframed the OP question about karma/reincarnation away from life-to-life and towards a moment-to-moment view. I'd agree that this is a skilful practice point, but it cheekily sidesteps the questions of what reincarnates, and what reaps the fruition of alleged karmic seeds from life to life.

 

Recent conciousness studies suggest that the brain creates consciousness/mind and a spontaneous sense of self: Julian Baggini in The Ego Trick even goes as far as to interview a couple of Tibetans on the very question, and finds that they don't have memories, can't identify what it is that reincarnates, and in fact use the same cheeky arguments put forward here.

 

Personally I've experienced past-life regressions, spontaneous 'telling' of the history of certain places, others' 'chi' fields, and some very interesting states in meditation both clean and chemically assisted. So I'm very open to the idea that there is more than brain chemistry ... but the usual arguments on karma/reincarnation amount to no more than childrens' stories for a pre-rational age, and this thread so far doesn't add much.

 

And of course in practice - the question of how do I gather something of "Rich" and develop/focus/condense it so it can consciously pass from this life into another - nobody seems to have any validated authority. Maybe if I gave up the rest of my life to Vajrayana (insert a better one) practises then I might come across a living teaching where they actually know about this sort of thing and are willing to teach it. But even asking seems to get me disqualified in my experience

 

Rich

Hi Rich,

 

I certainly had no intention to be cheeky. If it came across as such, please try not to take it in a negative light.

 

What i have been proposing here is to perform practices that creates a sense of urgency to absolve oneself of as much negative karmic imprints as possible while one still has the all the faculties intact. Accordingly, the appropriate manner in which to do this would be to simulate and get used to (as much as one can muster) the dying process so that when it actually happens, all the accompanying emotions normally associated with that moment, or short period (whichever applies), will have been pre-pacified whereupon they no longer pose as an impediment to dying well. How this is beneficial would be obvious to almost all who are serious practitioners, regardless of tradition or Path.

 

This is the developmental aspect (or seed) of the wish for gaining liberation in this lifetime. Another way to put it is to understand and employ the functionality of the method, path and fruition into this practice. Hence the brief recommendation to Jetsun is the Method aspect of it. As for the Path and the Fruition, which i think you are more than happy to learn about, and so would some others here (i guess), its a difficult enough subject to be discussed here without creating a lot of avoidable and seemingly nonsensical (to those who have no affinity with Buddhism, for example) babble which could, instead of helping, overturn one's good intentions and perhaps ruin what could otherwise be an auspicious discourse.

 

Just focussing on the Method takes years to accumulate merit and bear traces of tangible result, so for the serious Inquirer, if he or she finds the practices to be sensible and helpful, and have found some kind of affinity with it, then great - at that point it would be wisely practical to sought out spiritual friends who can guide one further. Such friends are there, but as we all know, until they can determine the student's 'heart' in relation to how far he or she can be guided, they will not impose on seekers generally. I have friends who staunchly and faithfully devote their practices under the guidance of only one teacher, some with a relationship of more than 20 years, and i can see that these individuals have almost eradicated all fear and doubt about the dualities surrounding life and death. Whether they have embarked on the deathless phase, of which we all want to master, only they and their teacher would know.

 

Its a very personal path, and i for one have no wish to impose on anyone and say that Vajrayana/Dzogchen is the more superior way to go, but i have a clocked up a bit of practice time, and so far, it seems to be helping in terms of a gradual distillation of the inner process.

 

Wish you the very best in your quest.

[laughingblade]

I certainly had no intention to be cheeky. If it came across as such, please try not to take it in a negative light.

 

Not at all. I was only poking a little bit.

 

What i have been proposing here is to perform practices that creates a sense of urgency to absolve oneself of as much negative karmic imprints as possible while one still has the all the faculties intact. Accordingly, the appropriate manner in which to do this would be to simulate and get used to (as much as one can muster) the dying process so that when it actually happens, all the accompanying emotions normally associated with that moment, or short period (whichever applies), will have been pre-pacified whereupon they no longer pose as an impediment to dying well. How this is beneficial would be obvious to almost all who are serious practitioners, regardless of tradition or Path.

 

That's beautifully stated. I do see the value in purification during life and the ability to remain present at death, although I'd like to think that (some) other (combination of) methods might achieve the same result. Is it reasonable to think of a heartful (bhakti, compassion), open channels, and e.g. higher yoga tantra clear light practices as aspects of the same achievements, or are they really just superficially alike?

 

 

And of course the answer to the "what reincarnates?" and "What reaps the karmic consequences?" questions are to "simulate and get used to (as much as one can muster) the dying process" so that when one arrives at that point then one has a chance to really find out.

 

Just focussing on the Method takes years to accumulate merit and bear traces of tangible result, so for the serious Inquirer, if he or she finds the practices to be sensible and helpful, and have found some kind of affinity with it, then great - at that point it would be wisely practical to sought out spiritual friends who can guide one further. Such friends are there, but as we all know, until they can determine the student's 'heart' in relation to how far he or she can be guided, they will not impose on seekers generally. I have friends who staunchly and faithfully devote their practices under the guidance of only one teacher, some with a relationship of more than 20 years, and i can see that these individuals have almost eradicated all fear and doubt about the dualities surrounding life and death. Whether they have embarked on the deathless phase, of which we all want to master, only they and their teacher would know.

 

I've been fortunate to have come across a little Vajrayana and Dzogchen teaching, and have benefitted from it, but I'm not sure the teachers have been top quality, and I'm very sure that I'm a poor student. So as I get a little older and my householder duties fall away I'd like to refocus: right now the relative accessability of Taoist Qigong practices vs. Tibetan are more appealing, but my own constraints definitely colour that preference.

 

 

Its a very personal path, and i for one have no wish to impose on anyone and say that Vajrayana/Dzogchen is the more superior way to go, but i have a clocked up a bit of practice time, and so far, it seems to be helping in terms of a gradual distillation of the inner process.

 

Wish you the very best in your quest.

 

 

That's good to hear, and evidenced by the quality of your contributions here. And thanks for your wishes.

 

Rich