the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3060
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by 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 :spy:
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

culaavuso said - Similar to the way that the motion of mass is understood to provide the conditions for observing gravitational waves, yet the precise mechanism of gravity is not known. An action provides the necessary conditions for the arising of a future experience, and this relationship can be observed without understanding the precise mechanism underlying the process.

I agree in part, however our understanding of gravity has moved from the abstract into concrete (albeit limited) understanding. The mystery of gravity has been solved, in part, through the scientific method. Why can't the same be said of rebirth? How do you distinguish between a necessary condition and a sufficient one for the outcome of an action? I guess we are getting into the philosophy of causation here.

culaavuso said - Likewise, while gravitational waves are commonly believed to exist due to theoretical prediction and indirect evidence it is still the case that direct measurement has failed and progress is still being made towards a more capable means of measurement in order to test the theory. In the case of dukkha arising between lives, the available means of measurement are for most individuals limited but there is a possibility of understanding the theory and making indirect observations.

Perhaps but rebirth seems to occupy a different arena than quantum mechanics. If they were comparable then some area of research should have begun already? How can we know that such an observation isn't simply a product of confirmation bias?

culaavuso said - In either case there can be grounds for a working hypothesis without yet coming to a definition conclusion that "only this is true; anything else is worthless".
Of course, that would be un-scientific.
culaavuso said - The question of mechanism seems to be an indirect way to work out the precise functioning of kamma, which AN 4.77 explains would bring madness and vexation.
The mechanism of action can be divorced from the outcome of an action.

culaavuso said - The explanations of dependent arising explain the relationships between aspects of experience, not the mechanisms that underlie those relationships. When using such explanations it can be helpful to keep in mind their intended purpose.
I realise that however that doesn't mean a mechanism doesn't underlay the process, and if it does it can be a valid area of research. Unless of course its an abstract concept which is divorced from reality.
(Quine quoted by culaavuso) - The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience.

That sounds similar to Kant and transcendental idealism? I would disagree with Quine since even though science is a man made construct, it works. The "man-made fabric which impinges on experience" allows a nuclear weapon to flatten a city. I'm aware of Quine but I will admit I'm slightly ignorant of his thought, however it would seem that he suggests that human thought is only an approximation of reality. If that is so I dont see how I can agree with his point, since the approximation has definite outcomes that are universal to all humans, for example nuclear physics can lead to nuclear war.

culaavuso said - When investigating any question, it can be helpful to first understand what the purpose of the question is and what actions will be taken based on the answer.

That would depend on which paradigm the question operates from. For example asking if the world is flat or spherical could be influenced by either ideology, such as trying to prove a certain religious claim, or it could be influenced by curiosity and/or scepticism. The first comes with ideological baggage, the second from a blank slate.

culaavuso said - Different fields of study have formed different sets of truths and identified useful relationships that are actionable towards different goals.
Quid est veritas? Surely there is only one truth, not multiple? The Earth being spherical is always true, since it cant be spherical and flat. The correspondence theory of truth seems to be the only rational option.

Quote by Karl Popper - No matter how intense a feeling of conviction it may be, it can never justify a statement. Thus I may be utterly convinced of the truth of a statement; certain of the evidence of my perceptions; overwhelmed by the intensity of my experience: every doubt may seem to me absurd. But does this afford the slightest reason for science to accept my statement? Can any statement be justified by the fact that K. R. P. is utterly convinced of its truth? The answer is, ‘No’; and any other answer would be incompatible with the idea of scientific objectivity. Even the fact, for me to so firmly established, that I am experiencing this feeling of conviction, cannot appear within the field of objective science except in the form of a psychological hypothesis which, of course, calls for inter-subjective testing: from the conjecture that I have this feeling of conviction the psychologist may deduce, with the help of psychological and other theories, certain predictions about my behaviour; and these may be confirmed or refuted in the course of experimental tests
All that argues is that personal conviction is no measure of truth. It would even seem to be an argument against mediators "seeing" rebirth. What would happen if all Buddhist's applied that view to the Buddhas claims?

culaavuso said - Taking such a limited approach appears to lead to a form of behaviorism where conscious experience, a central part of the Buddha's teaching, is entirely ignored.
I take it your tying this into intention, free will and Kamma? Sociobiology/Evolutionary psychology seems to be more plausible than behaviourist conditioning.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Mkoll »

Pondera wrote: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 :spy:
You can kill the thread but it will just be reborn again! Muahahahahsahaha!

:tongue:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Mkoll wrote:
Pondera wrote: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 :spy:
You can kill the thread but it will just be reborn again! Muahahahahsahaha!

:tongue:

Your distinctive opinions will be assimilated into our own. Resistance to the rebirth thread is futile :alien: :guns:
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pondera wrote: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 :spy:


How can a simple observation of a bridge be dukkha?
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Mkoll »

clw_uk wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
Pondera wrote: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 :spy:
You can kill the thread but it will just be reborn again! Muahahahahsahaha!

:tongue:

Your distinctive opinions will be assimilated into our own. Resistance to the rebirth thread is futile :alien: :guns:
But you changed your avatar! :cry:

Image
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

But you changed your avatar! :cry:

Image

:jumping:


It became, irrelevant :guns:



Image
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by culaavuso »

clw_uk wrote:The mystery of gravity has been solved, in part, through the scientific method. Why can't the same be said of rebirth? How do you distinguish between a necessary condition and a sufficient one for the outcome of an action? I guess we are getting into the philosophy of causation here.
One reason is that gravity is defined in terms that are within the inter-subjective domain of science, specifically mass and space. Theories of rebirth involve conscious experience as a key component of their description, which has no universally agreed upon method of inter-subjective observation.
clw_uk wrote: I realise that however that doesn't mean a mechanism doesn't underlay the process, and if it does it can be a valid area of research. Unless of course its an abstract concept which is divorced from reality.
There are epistemological difficulties with ever knowing with absolute certainty that a theoretical mechanism is correct in an ontological sense from the perspective of scientific realism. This can be understood via the problem of induction which has been known at least as far back as the Pyrrhonians. Questions about "reality" of this sort have had contradictory answers in Western philosophy at least as far back as Plato and Pyrrho.
clw_uk wrote: That sounds similar to Kant and transcendental idealism? I would disagree with Quine since even though science is a man made construct, it works. The "man-made fabric which impinges on experience" allows a nuclear weapon to flatten a city. I'm aware of Quine but I will admit I'm slightly ignorant of his thought, however it would seem that he suggests that human thought is only an approximation of reality. If that is so I dont see how I can agree with his point, since the approximation has definite outcomes that are universal to all humans, for example nuclear physics can lead to nuclear war.
Quine is not saying it doesn't work. Newtonian mechanics allows a trebuchet to destroy a village, but the theory of newtonian mechanics is not widely viewed today as true from the perspective of a correspondence theory of truth. For it to "work" only requires a pragmatic theory of truth, not a correspondence theory.
clw_uk wrote:That would depend on which paradigm the question operates from. For example asking if the world is flat or spherical could be influenced by either ideology, such as trying to prove a certain religious claim, or it could be influenced by curiosity and/or curiosity. The first comes with ideological baggage, the second from a blank slate.
The notion of a blank slate is worth questioning. When there is curiosity, this tends to mean that there is a desire for particular knowledge. When the curiosity is acted upon, this tends to mean that there is an assumption about the best way to acquire the desired knowledge and an assumption about the form that the desired knowledge will take. These desires and assumptions seem distinct from a completely blank slate.
clw_uk wrote: Quid est veritas? Surely there is only one truth, not multiple? The Earth being spherical is always true. It cant be spherical and flat. The correspondence theory of truth seems to be the only rational option.
The notion of the earth being spherical is an excellent example of multiple truths. From the perspective of many rough calculations or making globes, this approximation is usually good enough to accomplish the intended goal. However, when calculating satellite orbits this is inadequate and the Earth might instead be modeled as an oblate spheroid. When calculating the optimal placement of radio repeaters networks the approximation of an oblate spheroid is inadequate and the irregularities of surface elevation must be taken into account. In each of these cases, what is acceptable as true depends on the desired goal and actions to be performed with the information. When laying the foundation for a small building, it may be perfectly acceptable to approximate the earth as flat. None of these cases require absolute correspondence with an ontological state of affairs, but instead require a suitable description which allows for successfully accomplishing a goal.

There are a number of objections to the correspondence theory of truth. The possibility of other rational options is part of the ongoing discussions regarding interpretations of quantum mechanics. Simply put, the utility of physics does not require ontological assumptions. There are a number of rational alternatives to the correspondence theory. Proponents of the pragmatic theory of truth have included Richard Feynman, one of the physicists who assisted in the development of the atomic bomb.
clw_uk wrote: All that argues is that personal conviction is no measure of truth. It would even seem to be an argument against mediators "seeing" rebirth.
If truth is limited to inter-subjective observation, how can any statement involving conscious experience be said to be true? Popper is not speaking solely about conviction, but about the difference between subjective and inter-subjective phenomena.
clw_uk wrote: I take it your tying this into intention, free will and Kamma? Sociobiology/Evolutionary psychology seems to be more plausible than behaviourist conditioning.
There is no need to begin to look at free will and kamma: consciousness and dukkha are already outside the realm of inter-subjective observation.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

** All quotes from Ven. culaavuso **


One reason is that gravity is defined in terms that are within the inter-subjective domain of science, specifically mass and space.
How else could it be defined? I think we have to give credence to the assumption that we discover these "laws" and that these "laws" would operate regardless of if there are sentient beings with inter-subjective experience of them. I think Marx made a reasonable statement:

"“The great basic question of all philosophy, especially of more recent philosophy, is the relation of thinking and being... spirit to Nature... which is primary, spirit or Nature.... The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primary of spirit to Nature and, therefore, in the last instance, assumed world creation in some form or other... comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded Nature as primary, belonged to the various schools of materialism.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... t/ch02.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In essence, matter proceeds mind.
Theories of rebirth involve conscious experience as a key component of their description, which has no universally agreed upon method of inter-subjective observation.
But how does the person know that they aren't just succumbing to confirmation bias?


There are epistemological difficulties with ever knowing with absolute certainty that a theoretical mechanism is correct. This is the problem of induction which has been known at least as far back as the Pyrrhonians.
Of course, however we can assert beyond reasonable doubt. I cannot say for certain that Vampires do not exist, yet the probability is so low I can safely assert that they dont exist. All "knowledge" is approximation beyond reasonable doubt.

Quine is not saying it doesn't work. Newtonian mechanics allows a trebuchet to destroy a village, but the theory of newtonian mechanics is not widely viewed today as true from the perspective of a correspondence theory of truth. For it to "work" only requires a pragmatic theory of truth, not a correspondence theory.
Well according to Peirce "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality. (EP1: 139)"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/#PeiTruRea" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Yet not all scientists agree that Evolution occurs, yet all scientists investigate. If a majority vote isn't the deciding factor in what is true, what is? It would have to be repeatable, empirical evidence. That which corresponds to external events, separate from opinion, is real and true.

The notion of a blank slate is worth questioning. When there is curiosity, this tends to mean that there is a desire for particular knowledge. When the curiosity is acted upon, this tends to mean that there is an assumption about the best way to acquire the desired knowledge and an assumption about the form that the desired knowledge will take. These desires and assumptions seem distinct from a completely blank slate.
Perhaps but I dont see your point?
The notion of the earth being spherical is an excellent example of multiple truths. From the perspective of many rough calculations or making globes, this approximation is usually good enough to accomplish the intended goal. However, when calculating satellite orbits this is inadequate and the Earth might instead be modeled as an oblate spheroid. When calculating the optimal placement of radio repeaters networks the approximation of an oblate spheroid is inadequate and the irregularities of surface elevation must be taken into account.
Yet the Earth is never flat, or being held up by the God Atlas.
There are a number of objections to the correspondence theory of truth. The possibility of other rational options is part of the ongoing discussions regarding interpretations of quantum mechanics. Simply put, the utility of physics does not require ontological assumptions. There are a number of rational alternatives to the correspondence theory. Proponents of the pragmatic theory of truth include Richard Feynman, one of the physicists who assisted in the development of the atomic bomb.

The use of the term "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, something that is beyond all our petty prejudices and desires.

As for quantum mechanics, the case is far from shut. There are theories that a causal underpinning of the quantum world just hasnt been found yet.

"God doesnt play with dice"


However lets say we use Quantum Mechanics as a means to disprove hard physicalist materialism. I still dont see how this would save rebirth/Kamma, since randomness is no more compatible with Buddhadhamma then deterministic materialism.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Mkoll »

clw_uk wrote:** All quotes from Ven. culaavuso **
Is culaavuso a monk? That'd be news to me, though not surprising given his excellent conduct.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

culaavuso


"truth is relative to a conceptual scheme"


Is this the essence of your argument?
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Mkoll wrote:
clw_uk wrote:** 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?
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by culaavuso »

clw_uk wrote: 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?
Wikipedia wrote: 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:
[url=http://people.virginia.edu/~ecd3m/1110/Fall2014/The_Character_of_Physical_Law.pdf]The Character of Physical Law[/url] (p. 33, 53) by Richard Feynman wrote: 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.
[url=http://people.virginia.edu/~ecd3m/1110/Fall2014/The_Character_of_Physical_Law.pdf]The Character of Physical Law[/url] (p. 157) by Richard Feynman wrote: 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.
clw_uk wrote: "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.
clw_uk wrote:
Mkoll wrote: 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.
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3060
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Pondera »

clw_uk wrote:
Pondera wrote: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 :spy:


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.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

clw_uk wrote: Your distinctive opinions will be assimilated into our own. Resistance to the rebirth thread is futile :alien: :guns:
Indeed, it's unstoppable and relentless. :lol:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply