Yes, I'm not all that familiar with such studies, but think they appear quite interesting and suggestive.justindesilva wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 5:29 pmThere had been many case studies on rebirth where one being many rebirths investigated by dr. Ian Stevenson , a canadian professor and psychiatrist. Another such study was made around 1952 !,by the editors and a reputed thero Piyadassi..A specific case of a child called Gnanatilaka investigated at places of mention of past life.And proved correct. Kaysee was another non buddhist in west who mentioned past births and deeds for treatments , not being a medico. He mentioned that present sicknesses occurred as a result of past deeds. Dr Jung also has recorded such incidents to prove clinically that bad deeds resulted in karmic deceases.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:57 pmAnd why should we take what Hume said seriously? Why is that a "rational" belief?
There are two further ways to go here:We can say if an argument is sound and valid. Does deduction provide a relationship with the world and real things? I don't think it can provide that
1. How do we know if an argument is sound and valid?
2. If there is no relationship with the world of real things, in what sense is it "rational" to look at the relations between ideas?
Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
I don't think we should stop using induction. Not at all. I don't think we should stop using the pronoun "I" either. Rather I think we should not get dazzled by these concepts, deluding ourselves into thinking they relate to or give access to substantial things. The highest understanding, after all, is that of Emptiness, Signless and Desireless/Nothingness.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:30 pmSo rationality only applies to deductive reasoning? If so, then inductive generalisations based on experience cannot by definition be rational. But that's no reason to not use them. It's as "rational" in an everyday sense to rely on them, as it is to rely on relations between ideas.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:20 pmSomething is considered to be rational or irrational based on the how we use language. The irrationality of a proposition is based on the meaning the words within provide, or I should say the meaning we give them. Rationality and irrationality relate to concepts and ideas, and how we use them. They don't ultimately exist in reality either. In our conventional discourse however, a justified argument is a rational one. An unjustified one is irrational. The argument that centres on all men being immortal is irrational, because the meaning we agree on is that all men are not immortal.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
Of course. But our obvious inability to generate absolute certitude relating to the future based on past experiences is hardly much of a problem. In a technical sense, that lack of absolute certitude could be said to constitute "irrationality". But in all practical senses, it's not.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:34 pmI don't think we should stop using induction. Not at all. I don't think we should stop using the pronoun "I" either. Rather I think we should not get dazzled by these concepts, deluding ourselves into thinking they relate to substantial things.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:30 pmSo rationality only applies to deductive reasoning? If so, then inductive generalisations based on experience cannot by definition be rational. But that's no reason to not use them. It's as "rational" in an everyday sense to rely on them, as it is to rely on relations between ideas.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:20 pm
Something is considered to be rational or irrational based on the how we use language. The irrationality of a proposition is based on the meaning the words within provide, or I should say the meaning we give them. Rationality and irrationality relate to concepts and ideas, and how we use them. They don't ultimately exist in reality either. In our conventional discourse however, a justified argument is a rational one. An unjustified one is irrational. The argument that centres on all men being immortal is irrational, because the meaning we agree on is that all men are not immortal.
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
Just like how the use of "I am hungry" is very useful but, ultimately, can't withstand analysis so to induction is of course very useful but, ultimately, it can't withstand analysis. Both are useful, but a problem occurs, at least in terms of Dhamma, if we then, on the basis of those pragmatic concepts, start to believe in substantial entities such as attas, matter or galaxies. We create these concepts and then become caught up in them. What a tangled web we weave.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:40 pmOf course. But our obvious inability to generate absolute certitude relating to the future based on past experiences is hardly much of a problem. In a technical sense, that lack of absolute certitude could be said to constitute "irrationality". But in all practical senses, it's not.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:34 pmI don't think we should stop using induction. Not at all. I don't think we should stop using the pronoun "I" either. Rather I think we should not get dazzled by these concepts, deluding ourselves into thinking they relate to substantial things.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:30 pm
So rationality only applies to deductive reasoning? If so, then inductive generalisations based on experience cannot by definition be rational. But that's no reason to not use them. It's as "rational" in an everyday sense to rely on them, as it is to rely on relations between ideas.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
So what's rational about a belief in "Emptiness, Signless and Desireless/Nothingness"? What's the justification for a belief in these things?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:45 pmJust like how the use of "I am hungry" is very useful but, ultimately, can't withstand analysis so to induction is of course very useful but, ultimately, it can't withstand analysis. Both are useful, but a problem occurs, at least in terms of Dhamma, if we then, on the basis of those pragmatic concepts, start to believe in substantial entities such as attas, matter or galaxies.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:40 pmOf course. But our obvious inability to generate absolute certitude relating to the future based on past experiences is hardly much of a problem. In a technical sense, that lack of absolute certitude could be said to constitute "irrationality". But in all practical senses, it's not.
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
I don't have a rational belief in them. I have an irrational one, hence why I have faith. I could construct rational arguments for them I suppose. They aren't about rational belief though, but direct knowing. I think though that, in the end, those too are let go of.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:52 pmSo what's rational about a belief in "Emptiness, Signless and Desireless/Nothingness"? What's the justification for a belief in these things?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:45 pmJust like how the use of "I am hungry" is very useful but, ultimately, can't withstand analysis so to induction is of course very useful but, ultimately, it can't withstand analysis. Both are useful, but a problem occurs, at least in terms of Dhamma, if we then, on the basis of those pragmatic concepts, start to believe in substantial entities such as attas, matter or galaxies.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:40 pm
Of course. But our obvious inability to generate absolute certitude relating to the future based on past experiences is hardly much of a problem. In a technical sense, that lack of absolute certitude could be said to constitute "irrationality". But in all practical senses, it's not.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
Me too. But do you also have faith that there are stable laws which govern how you attain them, or do you think they will randomly appear?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:54 pmI don't have a rational belief in them. I have an irrational one, hence why I have faith.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:52 pmSo what's rational about a belief in "Emptiness, Signless and Desireless/Nothingness"? What's the justification for a belief in these things?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:45 pm
Just like how the use of "I am hungry" is very useful but, ultimately, can't withstand analysis so to induction is of course very useful but, ultimately, it can't withstand analysis. Both are useful, but a problem occurs, at least in terms of Dhamma, if we then, on the basis of those pragmatic concepts, start to believe in substantial entities such as attas, matter or galaxies.
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
You are asking about paṭiccasamuppāda I assume? I'll answer later, for sure. Right now I'm about to get ready, get into a car, go the gym and workout for an hour. I'm doing all of that based on induction, at some levelSam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:00 pmMe too. But do you also have faith that there are stable laws which govern how you attain them, or do you think they will randomly appear?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
There is no need for such a justification.
Justification is only needed in some legal matters and when writing papers at university and such, and then it's about very specific justifications by very specific criteria. For everything else, we have self-confidence, or at least a gut feeling, and we take a dim view of anyone demanding more of us.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Glenn Wallis
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
So? What do you think follows from that?
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Glenn Wallis
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
Well, have a fun time! And don't forget to warm up properly.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:03 pmYou are asking about paṭiccasamuppāda I assume? I'll answer later, for sure. Right now I'm about to get ready, get into a car, go the gym and workout for an hour. I'm doing all of that based on induction, at some level
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
Again, look at the context and you will see why the word was used.Radix wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:16 pmThere is no need for such a justification.
Justification is only needed in some legal matters and when writing papers at university and such, and then it's about very specific justifications by very specific criteria. For everything else, we have self-confidence, or at least a gut feeling, and we take a dim view of anyone demanding more of us.
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
Scientific theories, especially the ones in physics, are built on the foundation of mathematics, which is deductive reasoning. So, you have some basic principles deduced from observations (induction), the Occam's razor and mathematics. The basic principles, the axioms of physics, can also be justified deductively, at least to some extent, in that we can consider universes where they don't apply and argue that such would not be likely to lead to intelligent life, etc.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:14 pmThis just moves the goalpost IMO. How do we arrive at the theories of what happens in the sun and the physical laws? I assume you will say its to do with induction again?Dan74 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 5:15 pm I think the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is justified by our understanding of the processes inside the sun and the physical laws that underpin them, rather than simply basing it on past experience. We do, for instance, know that stars can go supernova and why.
Regardless, the assumptions are not haphazard, but typically the minimum that is essential to begin to make sense of the empirical evidence. You attempt to portray it all as "it's been thus and it will continue to be thus" but that's not what science says, except insofar as it assumes a certain stability to the laws of physics, but that can also be justified, as I've mentioned. You don't really appear to engage with any of these points I've made.
Universal laws are deduced from some basic observations and mathematics. How would you do it differently? What's your criticism essentially, that we can't be entirely sure of how real it all is? Well yeah, some think our world is a simulation. Others that it is mind-made. Regardless, the laws of physics work and work better than anything else. So it's pretty rational for me to accept that there is something to them. Of course, scientists and engineers may have no idea of how things work at all and the computers we are typing and reading on came into existence entirely by accident as people were just doing random things. But such considerations take us too far into the realm of the absurd for my taste.
You can assert whatever you like, but it is simple common sense to believe the collective weight of evidence that science and the technology based on it have achieved. This is being rational, IMV.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:14 pmAs I said, yes. There are assumptions in science. Science has to assume certain things, in order to do science.There are, as I've tried to state, underlying axioms about the stable laws underpinning the workings of the universe, and a great deal of deduction.
Verificationism is pretty much dead, sorry to say. Not even those who proposed it argued for it, in the end.As to how the laws are arrived at and whether they are deduced, induced or discovered, there is a bit of A and a bit of B (and C), but regardless, countless of pieces of evidence serve to verify their validity. So as Sam pointed out, I think, when they are verified through weighty evidence, it is rational to take them as true.
Well, it depends what kind of justification you require. I've adduced what I see as the best justification one is going to get. But as Descartes observed some 400 years ago, we cannot be 100% sure of anything except that we reason and therefore exist. I don't really see anything unsatisfactory about the current state of affairs. You seem to be looking for that elusive snark. But there is no snark. He's been a boojum all along.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:14 pmMy position is that induction, as of yet, can't be justified. Deduction can be justified, based on the language and meaning of words that we use. Deduction however does not give us access to reality. It doesn't establish matter, causality, the strong and weak nuclear forces and so on. It gives us our best theory about how the world is, but this is still limited to concepts. How to bridge the gap between the words we use and their referents is, as far as I can see, an impossible bridge to build.You seem to insist that the only rational belief is one that is shown purely through the use of logic. In an empirical world, where evidence is always about particulars, no general belief would then be "rational" in your view. Even particulars can be doubted, since we only have evidence of our sense and they could be mistaken, tricked, etc. We are left with Descartes dilemma. The only thing we can reliably conclude is that we reason and therefore exist. That's fine if you want to set the bar that high. I am happy to take a pragmatic approach. I happen to believe that it's more rational, since it tallies better with our experience.
In terms of practice, once we begin to settle into the moment-by-moment flow of the phenomena and once the awareness sharpens, this scepticism is beside the point, it seems to me. It is about the arising and ceasing of clinging and aversion, it's about the self-view, the me-and-mine, the shedding of the layers of ignorance and delusion that is done through insight as part of the experience, not deduction. So what is the applicability of what you've describing here to practice, would you say?
_/|\_
Re: Karma and consequently rebirth is a load of rubbish
I don't think the Emptiness, Signless and Wishless/Nothingness samādhis just happen. I think they occur by taking an aspect of experience as one's meditation. Emptiness, for example, is where the emptiness of self and other is meditated upon. The same for the Signless and the lack of signs, and Wishless/Nothingness with the lack of anything to hold onto. These samādhis are impermanent, of course, but they are based on a certain view of the world. That view is reached by understanding paṭiccasamuppāda. When one understands paṭiccasamuppāda one then understands the absence of substance. In other words, the absence of Self or what belongs to it, the absence of Signs (form, earth, air etc) and the absence of anything worth holding onto. When one sees paṭiccasamuppāda, they see nibbāna.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:00 pmMe too. But do you also have faith that there are stable laws which govern how you attain them, or do you think they will randomly appear?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”