Nonsense in Buddhism II (1 of 2) - Life After Death - Rebirth and Reincarnation

[cartoonhead5]

In thinking about this issue of life after death, I cannot yet decide whenever it is one of those extremely unlikely things or an absolutely impossible one. This has to do with the question "what is the self"? It cannot be the personality because it can be lost (through brain damage and the like)nor can it be the body because the body like all things is always changing.

[cartoonhead5]

Part 2 - But it is not impossible that somehow my memory could be preserved and implanted in the mind of a clone or something. Or yet that we live in a kind of dream world and when the body dies a dreamer wakes with all memory of the dream still intact. But my question is, is that clone or the dreamer "me"? Is that PERSONAL survival or not? What are your thoughts on this Mr. Solway?

[KevinSolway]

@cartoonhead5 My view is that we are not the same person for two consecutive moments, since all things are changing all the time. Some times things change more rapidly than others, such as in the case of brain damage, or death. My issue with Buddhist reincarnation is that cause and effect doesn't happen in neat, separate channels, but that one cause has many, simultaneous effects. It's not the case that one thing turns into another one thing, but that one thing has countless simultaneous effects

[cartoonhead5]

@KevinSolway I agree with your above comment, but what I was getting at was even if reincarnation was true (which of course its not)it would not be personal survival just continuation of memory. Do you agree or disagree with that?

[KevinSolway]

@cartoonhead5 Yes, it would only be continuation of memory. There is no "self" apart from memory, and other such things, just as there is no "car" apart from the parts of a car. This was the essence of the Buddha's teaching of "anatma" ("no-self"), but this fact is lost on Buddhists, who have no comprehension whatsoever as to what the Buddha taught.

[cartoonhead5]

@KevinSolway Yes just like the parts of the car can still be used on others or an organ can be transplanted to a living person the car is still gone and the person is still dead though some of their "parts" might survive. That is something the believers in reincarnation cannot or do not want to understand.

[AmpsforBuddha]

Are we here to find the truth or to win the argument?

[TheVopepigota]

i recomend people actually watch the ajahn brahm video he has sampled so biasly. its proably about a practical life problem and the skillful ways of going about handleing life problems. 99% of buddhism is practical and expirential. those who say otherwise are, sadly, the ones who could benifit from buddhism the most :(. metta, karuna, mundita, upekkha

[magyarbondi]

The nonsense comes from mis-interpreted concepts: so-called orientalists could not understand the lack of morality (or "ethics") in Eastern thinking, and Christians could not accept it because of the absence of a God. As such, "reincarnation" and "rebirth" has nothing to do with Eastern thinking, they represent different ideas from different ideologists from different ages. "Reincarnation" includes more socialist-utopist dreams of a supposed continuous progression than true concepts of reality.

[FaithfreedomFFI]

When it comes to the survival of soul after death I am agnostic. The whole thing does not make much sense to me. Yet by comparing the body-soul relationtion to a candle and its flame you are engaging in straw man fallacy. We simply don't know whether there is a soul and if there is how it is connected to the body. The flame is a function of the candle. Is also soul a function of the body? Says who? Some say it is reflected in body, as lights reflects in a mirror. This argument is futile.

[KevinSolway]

@FaithfreedomFFI The candleflame was used as an analogy for the consciousness, rather than for the soul. Buddhists aren't supposed to believe in "souls", but they do believe in consciousnesses, and streams of consciousness.

Consciousness is dependent on the body, according to both experiment and reason.

It's pointless to talk about a "soul" unless you define what it is you are talking about.

[itsabomberscope]

Siddhartha would like you men of the infinite, you find out for yourself what is true, to the best of your ability. I think thats quite noble. Anyway, im wondering if there is life before death, the way this world is going.

"But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it" - Siddhartha Gautama (Sid to friends)

[KevinSolway]

@grubelsucht I have been studying Buddhism all my life, and in that time I have learned that most Buddhist believe in rebirth *literally* and don't regard it to be "metaphorical". They would brand you a heretic for merely suggesting it is metaphorical.

[KevinSolway]

@grubelsucht You know nothing about Buddhism. Nowhere did the Buddha say that you need a live teacher from whom you have to learn Buddhism. You are simply making things up to suit yourself.

[KevinSolway]

@grubelsucht Are you telling me that you don't know of any way to find out whether your knowledge is true, other than to use the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority?

What you are saying was not taught by the Buddha, but is something you have made up to suit yourself. You are preaching the exact opposite of what the Buddha taught.

[KevinSolway]

@grubelsucht You didn't answer my question.

[KevinSolway]

@grubelsucht If you're an example of someone who goes to temples then it means that we would all be better off not going to temples.

[KevinSolway]

@grubelsucht "I am not Buddha"

You most certainly are not. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Try using reason instead of the standard Buddhist practice of insulting people.

[grubelsucht]

@KevinSolway Such pontificating and braggadocio from one who "knows Buddhism" deserves insults, but I did not make them. You made them in your mind. Yes, I am talking about nothing, I must wake up. I have traveled the world and sat many hours in meditation for many years and I'm still a beginner. Do not comment further.

[KevinSolway]

@grubelsucht "Such pontificating and braggadocio from one who "knows Buddhism" deserves insults"

Typical Buddhist illogic on your part.

You need to demonstrate, using reason, that I am wrong. It is because you can't do this that you resort to insults.

Yes, you are a beginner.

[lisa7quantum]

wonderful! Amen brother! You said it, the truth that just seems to be too hard for people to accept so they need to make up reasons. I guess the word "reasons" is enough said. Why can't we be okay with what we really are. Why is that so terrifying that lies are comforting?

[Luigi84289]

@lisa7quantum Because a lot of people aren't ready. We are developing away from that need but it will take time.

[PrinceBased]

let people believe what they want to believe. why try to debunk a religion that teaches peace and harmony and masters of self denial. I'm catholic and i find not eating meat on fridays during lent difficult. i admire all religions for we all believe in a higher power. even if you don't believe in religion, don't try to act like YOURE right and know everything about how we are here. thats truly ignorant.

[KevinSolway]

@PrinceBased "a religion that teaches peace and harmony"

It doesn't matter what a religion teaches, it's how Buddhists actually behave that really matters. And Buddhists are, on the whole, almost as confused and flawed as other religions. Buddhists are definitely not peaceful and harmonious people when you have real-life interactions with them.

[Luigi84289]

@PrinceBased Truth. Why let people delude themselves and spend their lives believing in something that is not true? If everyone was an atheist society would have less divisions and people would have the capacity to look at everything logically and reasonably. Unnecessary divisions lead to pain and suffering. People get lost in their abstractions because they can't think clearly and do horrible heinous things and take away other people's one and only chance at life.

[PrinceBased]

@Luigi84289 but what gives you the right to say they can't believe in that? i don't believe in an atheist society i will alway believe in God but what gives me the right to say that you HAVE to believe in what i believe. THere would be less divisions if everyone would respect each others beliefs, whether its Catholic, Islam, or being atheist.

[Luigi84289]

@PrinceBased That's not what I stated. All I stated was that as Atheists we should expose the delusion. People are going to believe what they want to. I nor any Atheist can make you believe in anything. I had to come to a position of Atheism from a Methodist Christian worldview and it took years.

[Luigi84289]

The problem with that last part is that Religions are designed to convince you that they provide absolute truth. If every religion believes this than respect is impossible. The only way to have mutual respect is if everyone is your religion. And since Religion is a delusion and has always had nonbelievers even if only one religion existed in the world there would always be conflicts between those who believe and those who don't. 10 years ago I would have said with absolute certainty God Exists.

[PrinceBased]

@Luigi84289 Ive been a devoted Catholic for 20 years and have seen the workings of God firsthand so i don't believe it is a delusion at all. But unfortunately there is always going to be people who believe their beliefs are better than others. I was always taught to respect the beliefs of others and to never push my own beliefs on there, because who am i to do that and our religious leaders need to start preaching that instead of saying who's right and who's wrong

[Luigi84289]

@PrinceBased People naturally seek to look to a higher power to explain things beyond their comprehension if you need that then it is completely understandable. You must make the decision yourself to change your beliefs. Nothing anybody else states will lead you to alter your worldview if you do not wish to change it.

[PrinceBased]

@Luigi84289 you get what I'm saying ? idk if you know the teaches of Christianity but Jesus says love thy neighbor and its frustrating that many religious leaders are doing the opposite of that. Even if you are an atheist i still have to respect you, even if someone is muslim i still respect you and are open to hear your beliefs. I think if everyone has that type of mindset there wouldn't be so much division. You get what I'm saying?

[crazykwai]

ManoftheInfinite. I think youve misinterpreted . Do you practice meditation? Maybe you should try a 10 day retreat. You don't have to be a buddhist or accept it as your religion, just aproach it with an open mind. Take some time to see the true nature of your mind/self. Its not about belief its about seeing for yourself.You must have some sort of an interest in buddhism or you wouldn't be posting these videos. Theres many theories in quantum physics that support those in buddhism.Check it out.

[KevinSolway]

@crazykwai What do you think I've misinterpreted? I have seen for myself that mind is not independent of the physical world, and that's why I know that this monk is mistaken. If you are depending on science to support your belief in Buddhism then I think you are lost.

[KevinSolway]

@doomheart2001 I agree. The most important part of consciousness is memory, and if there is no memory then we can't say it is the same consciousness.

[Luigi84289]

YAAAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!! NEW VIDEOS!!!!! I've learned more from this channel than any other Atheist channel or book I've ever read.

[TheRoadsidePicnic]

Technically as Betrand Russell pointed out with his prove a teapot is not orbiting the sun example you cant prove rebirth either way, just say it is incredibly unlikely. The monk is asserting things as facts which is an incorrect buddhist approach.But it is wrong to confuse a 'bad buddhist' with the statement' Buddhism is bad'. Why not attend a buddhist temple for a few times and medidate..if only to confirm your beliefs that is all nonsense?

[TheNatureofOne]

@TheRoadsidePicnic "cant prove rebirth either way"

It's possible to disprove things that are logically impossible, and reincarnation/rebirth, as it is popularly presented by teachers such as the one in the video, is in fact logically impossible. It's simply not possible for cause and effect to work in the way he imagines that it does.

I've been meditating for thirty years, and have fully confirmed that these particular teachings are indeed nonsense.

[TheRoadsidePicnic]

@TheNatureofOne Oh I agree HE is talking nonsense. I meditate too and have never experienced what he claims either. He seems to be quite famous but to my mind is a rather dubious buddhist. In my opinion Rebirth can be presented in ways that are not logically impossible just extremely implausable. strictly speaking from what I remember of my philsophy days in such cases one has to technically say 'its highly unlikely rather than 'its a lot of crap' otherwise one is being unreasonable

[KevinSolway]

@TheRoadsidePicnic "my philsophy days"

I think academic philosophy is nonsense too.

The reason why I say that rebirth is impossible is that cause and effect doesn't work in isolated narrow channels. Rather, it is infinitely branched. One cause has countless simultaneous effects. Those who believe in literal reincarnation, like this monk, believe that there are separate streams of consciousness, which are also entirely separate from the physical world. This is impossible.

[amabodei]

I agree, an understanding of consciousness as not being independant of physical reality is very right minded. If I may use the robot analogy to illustrate my approach I would say this; a robot brain may rise to a level of dynamics that enables its physical processes to 'access' the realm of existence that is subjective. In doing so, it may obtain real qualia of experience unique unto itself. I see subjectivity as intrinsic to the nature of existence itself as opposed to a by-product of it.

[KevinSolway]

@amabodei "I see subjectivity as intrinsic to the nature of existence"

If "existence" is defined to mean "everything" then anything which exists must necessarily be intrinsic to existence.

[amabodei]

@KevinSolway Thats true;) I must try to explain what I mean more clearly. Mass and energy are concepts that are intrinic in describing the physical manifestation of a planet. Washing-mechines, on the other hand, seem to be by-products. The potential for a subjective experience of that planet is as intrinsic to the reality of that planet as are its mass, energy etc. Subjective experience is therefor not an emergence of simple-to-complex processes as in the case of washing mechines.

[KevinSolway]

@amabodei I"m not sure that there's much potential for subjective experience in an electron, or even in a rock. Only in some things does subjective experience arise, and those things have to have a certain level of complexity, along with other factors.

[amabodei]

@KevinSolway If by matter we mean that which constitutes mind* I would argue that an electron has a form of subjective experience. If it didn't, we'd be stuck with this paradox: If I look at a rock and experience the object 'rock' in my consciousness, granted that I and the rock are the same fundamental matter, there is nothing to say the rock is not conscious of itself via my mind.

In other words, mind implies the subjectivity of matter.

*Avoiding a dualistic understanding of mind and body.

[KevinSolway]

@amabodei I think what you're saying is that if only one being in the entire Universe is having an experience, such as an ant, then the rest of the Universe is having an experience through that ant. Is that right? I think it's a bit of a stretch, but it's logically consistent.

[amabodei]

@KevinSolway More or less. Yes, a stretch sure, however I like the idea as it is Copernican-esque in that it displaces our subjective mind from the center of consciousness - making consciousness something we 'open' to and discover. In being aware of our consciousness we become aware of our connection to the universal - the eternal perhaps. Thank you for this chance to share views - it has been most interesting!

[amabodei]

Nice video - A very grafic demonstration of consciousness being snubbed out. While I have no wish to defend your buddhist friend I have one gripe with your analogy - that is, the assumption that consciousness can be reductively explained in the same way a flame can be. It has been well argued that neurons and fleshy grey matter don't logically produce experience in the same way that fuel, oxygen and heat produce a flame. It would seem something else is going on in the case of consciousness.

[KevinSolway]

@amabodei There is no evidence that consciousness doesn't operate by means of cause and effect - just the the same as all other things. What arguments did you have in mind?

If consciousness did not operate by cause and effect then there is no way it could be aware of the physical world, since the physical world could have no effect on it.

[amabodei]

@KevinSolway That is of course true, consciousness as a phenomenon seems bound by causality just as much as a flame is. But are we talking about consciousness as an object, or as the subjective experience of ''what it is like to be a conscious person''? To me, the flame analogy doesn't seem fit to take into account this subjective element of consciousness.

[KevinSolway]

@amabodei "buddhist friend"

He's no friend of mine. In fact his philosophy seems to be the very opposite of my own. Mine is a philosophy of non-dualism, whereas his is one of extreme dualism.

[KevinSolway]

@amabodei "It has been well argued that neurons . . . "

It hasn't been well argued that consciousness doesn't operate by cause and effect. If you hear of such an argument, let me know.

[amabodei]

@KevinSolway You misunderstand my point - which is 'reductive explanation'. In his book 'the conscious mind' David Chalmers describes the explanatory gap between brain 'function' and conscious 'experience'. There is nothing in what I have said that implies that consciousness is outside the realm of cause and effect. My point is; likening consciousness to a flame is assuming a physical understanding of the phenomenon similar to that of a flame. To which I would argue there isn't one.

[KevinSolway]

@amabodei My argument is that we don't know all the detailed causes of anything - not even of a candleflame - but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that we know things are caused, and are not "independent", as the monk in this video likes to imagine that some things are.

The "subjective element of consciousness" is no different. It is entirely caused. The causes of it are impossible to trace, in perfect detail, but it's still caused.

[amabodei]

@KevinSolway Again, I don't condone one bit what that monk is saying - he seems to be facilitating a form of death denial. I probably shouldn't have even commented. However, I do think we could have an interesting discussion on causality and the role it plays with regards to consciousness (subjective experience). I would start by asking; is it not an assumption that consciousness is subject to the same laws that govern objects in the physical world?

[KevinSolway]

@amabodei "assumption"

It's a correct assumption, because if consciousness were not affected by the physical world then it could not know anything about the physical world. The fact that it is affected by the physical world (eg, it percieves physical objects) means that it is a part of cause and effect, and therefore it operates by cause and effect.

[amabodei]

@KevinSolway Ok, that makes sense; what you're saying is; because I 'see' a red apple, it is the objects 'red' and 'apple' that cause the experience of a red apple in my consciousness. I would agree, objects cause the 'content' of experience and of course my physical body determines what 'type' of experience I will have - but I still feel there is a jump from...

cont.

[amabodei]

@KevinSolway cont. ....this example of causality and the notion that consciousness itself is caused by physical laws. What would be your thoughts on the idea that counsciousness is a phenomenon as fundamental in the universe as the most basic laws of nature? Is there any reason to consider this idea at all?

[KevinSolway]

@amabodei I consider cause and effect to be the fundamental law of Nature, and consciousness seems to be an exceedingly rare thing. Even among human beings there is barely any consciousness, since most humans behave unconsciously - without thinking. So I certainly don't see any reason to think that consciousness is fundamental. In any case there are things more fundamental than consciousness, such as memory, without which consciousness could not function.

[amabodei]

@KevinSolway I realize now that we are using the word consciousness as meaning different things. If we are conflating conscious subjective experience with 'self awareness' then I would agree with you. But I feel there needs to be a destinction between 'self awareness' and the very 'qualia of conscious experience' which seems something more real, more fundamental then memory, personality, thought, knowledge, the world or anything else we attribute with the 'content' of consciousness.

[KevinSolway]

@amabodei If you're not talking about self awareness (awareness of self and object) then there is just stimulus and reaction to stimulus - which is just cause and effect. For example if you damage a plant, it will sense/detect something, and then make some programmed or computed response. If that is consciousness then consciousness is literally everywhere, but in my view that is just blind, unknowing cause and effect.

[amabodei]

@KevinSolway That is very interesting. So you differentiate being 'counsciously self aware' from that which is blind reaction to stimulous - ie, behaviour of a plant or a computer. So you'd agree, in this sense at least, that there is a destinction between what is counsciousness and what is mere cause and effect.

[KevinSolway]

@amabodei Consciousness (awareness of self and object) is a particular manifestation of cause and effect. It is a manifestation that experiences awareness of self and object. That's the only difference between conscious and unconscious things. Tomorrow we may be able to program a computer to be self aware.

I am not one of those who believe it is useful to say that "We were all originally Buddhas", because a Buddha is conscious ("awake"), whereas originally we weren't conscious.

[amabodie]

@KevinSolway I must ad more as you pointed toward 'buddha consciousness'. I realise that this is another discussion all together - one regarding levels of consciousness, moments of true awakeness and present moment experience that are qualitatively far richer than the normal 'sleep walking through life' that most of us do day to day. I'd like to know your understanding of this; is it an evolution of consciousness, or perhaps an unfolding of spiritual understanding?

[KevinSolway]

@amabodie Yes, it's a matter of degrees of consciousness. Human beings are barely conscious, and for the large part behave like animals. We are little different from chimpanzees. The slightest inkling of truth might flicker across the screen of such a consciousness from time to time. A perfect Buddha, as I see it, is a person for whom truth displays constantly, and without effort. We call it "spiritual" but it's actually just being realistic and practical.

[amabodei]

@KevinSolway Beautifully put. We have deffinately had our use of the word 'consciousness' confused. I've come from the more 'philisophical' or 'thought' based term - yours I feel is the meaning of conscious 'awakeness' to truth. I feel these two definitions over-lap in places and that I also find very interesting.

[KevZen2000]

Buddhism while one of the best religions, it still is irrational in many schools, and its basically making the universe a god, and mystical, when in reality its rational, and not of that kind of superstition.

[vessel0of0light]

It's interesting that a theravadin monk teaches the Tibetan Buddhist doctrine of there being an intermediate state between rebirths (bardo), instead of the theravadin conviction that there isn't such a state. Is he aware of a currently known meditation technique that reveals this state but which the author of abhidamma didn't know about?

[KevinSolway]

@vessel0of0light "currently known meditation technique that reveals this state"

There is no such technique. Every single moment is a "bardo" (intermediate state) between two different moments.

[jupta00]

I'll play the devil's advocate here for a moment. Maybe the monk's saying that consciousness, in and of itself, is separate from the body(which includes the brain)? That would be correct.

On the other hand, consciousness is dependent on the body in exactly the same way that it's dependent on everything else(like those candles.)

[perrofrio]

@jupta00 You are wrong. The mind is nothing without the body. The mind is only dependent on oxygen for optimal brain functioning and a complex elaboration from years of experience.

[KevinSolway]

@jupta00 If the mind were separate from the physical world, there's no way it could know of the existence of the physical world.

[jupta00]

@KevinSolway "If the mind were separate from the physical world, there's no way it could know of the existence of the physical world."

That's only true if you define "physical world" as "everything", in which case the term loses its ordinary meaning. If that's how you define it, then I agree.

[KevinSolway]

@jupta00 If there were two worlds - the "physical world" and the "spiritual world" - and they were entirely separate and independent, and the physical world could have no impact on the spiritual world, then the spiritual world would be entirely unaware of the physical world. If the spiritual world was aware of the physical world, then the physical world would be having an impact on the spiritual world, and so the spiritual world wouldn't be separate and independent.

[jupta00]

@KevinSolway that's what I said initially. Consciousness is dependent on the body in the same as it's dependent on everything else.

[jupta00]

@jupta00 contd - but it is nevertheless separate from everything else except itself, which includes the body.

[KevinSolway]

@jupta00 Okay, I see what you're saying.

But I'm pretty sure the monk is saying that the mind is both separate (in the sense that it can be distinguished) AND independent. He thinks that if you physically destroyed your brain, your thoughts would be unaffected.

[jupta00]

@KevinSolway that's probably because he doesn't know what "mind" means. He thinks it means a particular state of the brain, like a "mystical" state, and because of his attachment to it he doesn't want it to go away.

[KevinSolway]

@jupta00 He wants to believe that there is something more permanent than this life - something more permanent than a candleflame - but he is only dreaming.

[Haplo09]

Very nice video. I Can you also make a video, sometime in the future maybe, about about your thoughts on bhudda's teachings?