Cause and effect is not a guided process. Actions lead to their consequences and were caused by combinations of prior events in a vast network extending through time and space, but the idea that immoral acts bring suffering back on the soul which caused them necessitates a guiding moral arbiter. How could the impersonal nature of causality balance the human world in order to ensure that our successive lives are progressive, rather than random, without such a guiding force?
I have to agree. To first say that karma simply means cause and effect and is a scientific principle, and then to move to the notion of reincarnation and moral baggage is a bit of a rhetorical tactic in my eyes. It seems like instead of starting with scientific premises and moving to metaphysical conclusions, he's starting with metaphysical premises and moving to scientific conclusions (thereby not actually engaging in science). It's not just him, though; lots of people do that.
I can tell you, if you are happy to be alive, and if you then remember that this would not be the case, if your parents would have decided to abort you... what are your impressions about it?
After all, abortion is a decision against life, and you should have really good reasons for it, I mean, REALLY GOOD ones. And if you see a chance to avoid it, you really should avoid it. Unborn does not automatically mean unconscious. Just like always: You should know what you do.
Actually, it sort of does mean unconscious, depending on the phase. Even at the viability stage, the central nervous system isn't developed to the point of there being a cognitive apparatus.
I'm sorry, but by your line of reasoning, men should be morally accountable for unused ejaculate, women should have as many babies as possible before their ovaries dry up, and sex should only be for procreation. Frankly, that sounds like Catholicism.
@Luc88Cole I really don't know, how you can draw THAT picture of what I posted :-)
I just said, and I mean it absolutely: Abortion is killing life.
It is not up to me, to decide wether it is unconscious or not, since I don't know that, really. What you explain to me says: Unborn life cannot reflect or feel (as a body) its situation until a point of development.
I agree on that.
But does it also mean, that it is unconscious at all?
Essentially, my point is that the life of an embryo is contingent upon the life of the mother; just like any single cell in our body. If it's special because of its potential for autonomy, then it seems that the same argument could be made for gametes.
Secondly, without a developed central nervous system, consciousness is completely unfounded. If an entity without a cognitive membrane is somehow conscious, then I ask you this: how and where does consciousness manifest itself?
@Luc88Cole Well, the first question has to be: What IS consciousness. And before that is not clearly known, we can not decide wether consciousness needs a nervous system in order to EXIST, or wether consciousness USES a nervous system to be in the world together with a body. To get an idea of the difference, we could ask ourselves:
Is the awareness of all "things" a thing, or is it not? And exactly that we should not take from books, we should try to find it out.
First: books and empirical data provide us with the necessary premises from which we can reason. Anything else is purely anecdotal and unworthy of intellectual consideration.
Second: if your suggestion is that the cognitive apparatus is merely a conduit through which a supernatural consciousness interacts with the physical world, then you have already acknowledged that underdeveloped fetus' have no consciousness, because it has no conduit for the consciousness to occupy.
to 1) That is true as long as you are only collecting information to deal with. On the other hand, the experience of for example:'wet' cannot be achieved by reading its definition in a book.
to 2) I did not acknowledge that. There can be a worker in a room without hammer. Why should the abscence of a hammer implicitely mean the abscence of a worker?
And: 'Supernatural' is YOUR definition for what I mean. For me, it is completely natural, the essence of who you are. :-)
2.) Fallacy of a false analogy. Your statement before was that consciousness uses a nervous system to be in the world together with a body. If this is true (it's not), then if there is no nervous system present, then the consciousness is floating elsewhere, and is not in the body. Therefore, the underdeveloped fetus is merely a body without consciousness.
3.) Well, you aren't talking about anything scientific, so I wouldn't call it natural : /
2) Your statement still is based on (more or less) reasonable assumptions on what consciousness IS. Together with the assumption (science has not prooven that, afaik), that the nervous system creates consciuosness. Be honest, that is a BELIEVE of scientists, not a prooven fact. I think, that you only observe how consciousness works, but not what it IS.
3) So, anything science does not talk about, is not natural? So, we can be happy that scientists talk about so much today :-)
Actually, we have a very solid understanding of what consciousness it is through a combination of neurochemistry, evolutionary biology and phenomenology. And to ask for scientific proof is technically impossible; what science DOES provide, however, is 99.99999% certainty.
And no, I didn't assume that the nervous system creates consciousness in that statement. I used YOUR definitions and showed why a fetus doesn't have consciousness. Please read it more thoroughly.
@Luc88Cole So, you say because you are aware of your thinking, you have to be, because else, there could be no thought. OK, so far correct. Then here comes the next step:
Who is thinking? Are you your thought, the content of your thought, or the energy of your thought, or none of that all?
@Luc88Cole Really mate there's no need to talk to people like that unless they're being nasty. I thought the question he asked you was quite lucid. If you look at his/her page you'll see he's from Germany, and I bet his English is a lot better than your German.
I think it's quite valid to ask what is it that constitutes 'me'. Am I my thoughts, am I the sense of self that is aware of my thoughts, or is it both or neither or... who knows for sure?
@Luc88Cole I agree with a lot of what you said in this convo, but I don't think we do have a 'very solid understanding of what consciousness is'. Of course we have good reasons for thinking it's nothing more than a material process, and lots of theories and data probing it's depths but isn't consciousness still widely regarded among scientists as one of the greatest mysteries of the world? Not that this gives anyone the right to fill the mysterious gaps with whatever nonsense they please!
Yes we do have an understanding. It would take pages and perhaps an hour to thoroughly explain, but I'll do my best here:
There is a difference between receiving data and perceiving it. For example: if we merely received data, we wouldn't perceive motion - we would only see one still shot after another. We perceive motion because we have short-term memory, which recalls what happened no more than a split second earlier. Coupled with long term memory, we are capable of (cont'd)
capable of tapping into past experiences in order to better interpret incoming data. More advanced central nervous systems (i.e. those of human beings) are even capable of turning completely inward (e.g. rationalizing, philosophizing or meditating).
When we act on impulse, we aren't acting consciously. It's subconscious activity. What's interesting is muscle memory, because it is an impulse that is learned through conscious practice. Pretty crazy, huh? Hope this makes sense :)
@Luc88Cole Could you post a link to an article that explains it? I think I understand the mechanisms you mentioned to some degree but it's a huge leap from there to a comprehensive understanding of how our subjective experiences work from the bottom up. I mean there are almost as many different theories as there are scientists. Google Sam Harris' blog and read his most recent 2 entries for one view: other equally emminent researchers will have completely different ideas.
@Luc88Cole I mean we're talking about an organ with around 100 billion neurons, each with thousands or tens of thousands of connections, and everyone I've read says we're just beginning to scratch its surface; 'neuroscience is in its infancy'. Science is all about empirical data and predictive power, so as strange as quantum theory is, we can trust it because its predictions are incredibly accurate. The tools we currently use to investigate the brain, as sophisticated as they are ...
@Luc88Cole ... actually have terribly poor resolution when we consider the complexity of what they're looking at. We can see that there's more activity in certain parts of the brain under various conditions but the reason I don't think our understanding is solid is that our predictive power for what a given consciousness will do is very poor. Sam Harris reckons it's not even possible to empirically verify that a being IS conscious from looking at brains; we have to assume it, if with good reason
What we need to get down to here is, what do we mean when we ask, "What is consciousness?" Are we looking for a definition? Simple: awareness/perception. Are we looking for an explanation all the way down to the most precise neuro-chemical level? I concede, this remains shrouded in mystery. Our emotions? Neuro-chem 101. The aspects of experience? This is left to a combination of neuro-psych and phenomenology, and this is the kind of explanation I have provided. I recommend Husserl!
@Luc88Cole I googled Husserl but he died 150 years before neuroscience even started. You say you've provided an explanation of experience but I didn't get that - as I said, how is it even possible to empirically demonstrate that a person or animal actually IS conscious? The comprehensive understanding of consciousness that you said we already have would need to explain how these huge networks of individual cells give rise to an experience - otherwise it can't be called comprehensive.
@ballaststoffel2 I've been following your conversation with Luc88Cole and I might be able to clear up a misunderstanding. What we can tell about consciousness is that any time a brain is damaged, the mind is affected in a corresponding way. If the speech centre is totally destroyed that person no longer has any idea on how to speak, even though it was a big part of their personality before the damage. There are many similar examples that show that the mind is dependent on the brain.
@ballaststoffel2 If an immortal soul exists, and is natural as you suggest, then in some way it must manifest in the natural world and therefore in principle we should be able to detect it. Perhaps if we had sensitive enough instruments we could find it? If not then we have no good reason to believe it does exist. Feeling strongly that we have a soul isn't good enough - emotions and intuition are too often wrong.
In your brain-damage-example, is there prooven more than that a tool is broken?
If someone has a brain damage and can not speak anymore, but can still write the words down (instead of saying them) what exactly is then broken? The consciousness or a tool through which consciousness can express itself.
Following this line, the question is: Is there consciousness without carrier, or is it not. Or, can you find yourself not being a thing?
@ballaststoffel2 Language is more than just a tool; the words and sentences we have at our disposal define a great deal about our minds. Certainly my stream of consciousness involves a lot of language. Some brain damage strikes right to the core: there's a case of a man who was in a car accident and lost all his empathy. He no longer felt any love for his wife or child - a heartbreaking case, but what could be more central to our identity than our love for friends and family?
@tecciztucatl Yes, I thought a while about it, and I think you are right. But the question is:
Can you, even if you do not know anymore how to speak, even if you do not remember who is who, or what is what, if you forgot all you learned, can you still be conscious?
@ballaststoffel2 I think it can be as you say, that a patient has the same vocabulary and can write fluently but cannot speak - or all language can be wiped out - it all depends where the brain is damaged and how much is lost. Damage to the prefrontal cortex for example can result in a loss of inhibition, causing people to do terribly inappropriate things that they don't even know are wrong anymore - these can be permanent changes in personality.
@tecciztucatl I agree, but the question for consciousness cannot be answered by personality. Personality is changeable, and I assume mostly founded on habits, remembering and knowledge, beside what the environment gives us to deal with. You can call any kind of reaction personal. But, what is conscious no matter HOW you react, no matter what you think, no matter what you've learned. There IS consciousness, which you can be aware of. No need to be able to do anything.
@tecciztucatl But if the consciousness is not aware, then it identifies with everything it THINKS to be. So you can think: I am a very kind person. I have studied physics. I own a house and I have a lot of money. I am a hero, I am a looser, I am a thinker, dreamer, sportsman, good lover, bad lover. I am a collection of atoms, I am strong, I am the husband of my wife, etc... etc..
But that is not what you are, that is what you (and others) think you are, and that can change when brain is damaged.
He is so amazing, grounded and the reason I became a Buddhist! I love this man. In person he is gentle, caring and I wish I could attend his leactures in person.
This karma lecture is great! Depth and close to old senses.
I enjoyed the lecture. I think that Lama Ole Nydahl does a very good job explaining karma, but to really understand one's own karma and by extension, to better understand the karma of others, one must meditate. To simply go from shamata to vipassana is a great achievement in any life.
regarding the understanding of karma I've always thought that its not necessary to completely understand it. I think a useful view is to have some confidence that karma functions, then try and do our best in the situations life presents.
The moment when dharma students realize that dharma is about realization and not explanation, is a huge moment in their lives, but everyone needs some explanation too. Thanks for posting this excellent explanation.
@agnostoatomo Not sure why anyone would delete anything you write. I don't mind a dialogue as long as I have time, but if you direct anything to me be sure to indicate that., so I can be sure I should respond.
No,this was not adressed 2 u,except if u would have been able 2 delete my comment & done so.
The reason why i referred 2 the comparison between scientific cause&effect & Karma according 2 some Dharmatraditions is,because Ole Nydahl did so & said it is not a belief but fact.I agree with u that Buddhism has an antidukkha agenda & uses explanations according 2 the mental capacities of the listener.The Buddha made very clear that whatever he said is a pointing out 2 and not THE final truth itself.
@agnostoatomo The scientific approach to psychology illustrates the difference between what the Buddha thought important and what science considers important. In science one sees elaborate enumerations of symptoms. Causes are researched in chemistry and psychology. Mental balance is sometimes restored. But Buddhism applies meditation as a universal solvent to any mental suffering. Both use observation and logic as tools but science, except for quantum mechanics, bolsters the "material" world.
@ironpirites@ironpirites Lama Ole Nydahl undoubtedly has good reasons for referencing science in discussions with his students. Science has great prestige in our world. But students of the history of science can tell anyone that science does not always deserve the prestige it is accorded and does not always properly use the tools of logic and observation. The scientific attitude is a rare thing, even among scientists.
@agnostoatomo The person who doesn't realize what the Buddha was teaching, the person who believes in his ego, who is not aware of interdependant origination and who does not realize the void nature of ego. If you believe you are Hamlet, you will be a great Hamlet. If you don't really think you are Hamlet, you will be lousy at it. The Buddha was lousy at egotism. I'm much better at it thatn he was. You may be even better than I. I hope not.
@ironpirites So than ego is just an illusion based on belief,right?Than Karma is ,according to what you said,based on this and in this way an illusion too,otherwise there is noone who encounters Karma,right?
IF this is right than it's waaay different to the scientific understanding of cause&effect(even if this may be just a belief too)and it's a factor of a beliefsystem and not a fact!
@agnostoatomo Buddhism doesn't study karma the way science studies cause and effect. Science studies materials and their interactions. Buddhism studies mental productions and their consequences. Buddhism is a way of thinking designed to remove suffering. If you have a bad dream and see it and yourself as reality you can suffer greatly. If you have a bad life and regard it and yourself as an illusion you can remove the mental disturbances caused by your situation.
@ironpirites I jumped into this because I saw some interesting questions. I haven't seen the video, above. Science studies materials and their cause and effect relationships exhaustively. Buddhism is aware of cause and effect and enumerates some of those causes and effect but not exhaustively. Buddhism's concern is to relieve suffering through the study of the productions of the mind. When they are understood as essentially void in nature mental (and sometimes physical) suffering evaporates.
I was abused as a child, and I dn't get along with dad especially dad. it has been a long time cinse I saw them, I can't forgive them, I wonder if that's bad karma. what I know is the beating and constant dimeaning broke my soul in some way. my studies and my trust in human beings. my karma is good most of the time, I like to help people but people around me harm me mentally.
I also had a lousy childhood. I think the part of these teachings that helps people like us is not the teachings on karma but the part about the nature of our minds--that they are space that is self-aware and that nothing can hurt your mind. It's eternal and while because of our childhoods bad thoughts and feelings can arise they are passing and impermanent, like clouds in the sky (or storms that come and go) and that the eternal essence that's always there isn't affected by them. it helps me.
I'm so sorry you had a bad childhood. I did too and wanted to offer you something that has helped me and I hope it helps you just as much. I realised that I am not a slave to my nasty parents anymore, I don't have to try and impress them or get them to like me. I can let that go and start feeling good without them. I have the power to do that now. I no longer seek their approval. Blessings to you and a big hug to you from me. x
@angelyouknew2 Practising fundamental "tranquillity" meditation will help you calm your mind. After practising that successfully the mind switches gears into "insight" meditation, in which realizations about your situation will begin to spontaneously arise. That process will lead to a clear appreciation of the causes of your suffering and especially of their interdependant origination and essentially void nature. You will be able to navigate in life much more fruitfully after that.
Lama Ole is a political incorrect buddhist. He don´t kiss butt and refuse to be the buddhist the establishment want him to be. Lama Ole dont hate Islam, he just have the guts to say open what a lot of people think, but with pure wisdom.
"We're all the time building our life's" is on the other hand very individualistic thought. It sits well with the meritocracy of western culture.
It takes away 'chance' as an explanation. I think chance is a real explanation for many things. Thinking that wise and happy person is what she/he is, because of something, and unhappy person in a bad situation also caused his/her suffering and chace doesn't come in to it... it's kind of playing by the rules this competitive culture.
LOL untamedbuffalo. I knew he reminded me of someone but i never thought of it til you said it. I've been watching him for a bit now. Yah, he's good. Authentic lama.
she did not so positive things in former lives. it was not her, it was a former existence who did negative things. one can be a nice little girl with a lot of good karma (nice parents, education, health, beauty, whatever9 and as well be catched by karmic boomerangs of countless former lives.
sad but true. buddhism teaches to cut through this mechanism and change it forever.
The idea of Karma in Buddhism is not to tell people that they "deserve" what happens to them. It is like telling smokers that smoking is harmful. They may don't like to hear it, but knowing it they can try to change.
Nobody deserves to suffer, because people make the seeds for their suffering out of ignorance. It's like saying a small child who climbs up and fall out of a window deserves getting killed, but how could it know? (Sorry, terrible example, but I think it is clear).
if i walk around and intentionally think negative thoughts for a whole year, it will effect my life for the rest of my life. now apply this to rebirth. if you were negative your whole life you'll be negative in your next. unless you become awake to this fact.. in which case you then can change it..
I wasn't able to download this, but from what I've read, there is not only no self, but no consciousness, no ego,(in the Tibetan Buddhist thought), after we die. It all, level by level, dissolves. So what is it that's reborn. If everything is really just one, non-dual, than the idea of a rebirth is just another illusion of the ego. No?
there's definately a consciousness. You are using it right now. It's just that things are not exactly as they appear. If I understand it correctly the reality we each experience is largely self created.
On the absolute or essential level of mind though it would be quite correct to say that even rebirth is an illusion.
You should find a qualified Lama and as this question face to face. I'm sure you would get an answer that would satisfy you.
@kirk7524875248 The one, non-dual that you describe is the state of mind of the Buddha passing into nirvana. Then there is no re-birth. Ordinary people carry their "self consciousness" along with them to whatever rebirth their habitual behavior patterns have prepared themselves for.
Interesting, you are right in saying there is no judging entity out there, in this universe... but beyond this universe there is God the almighty, and angels etc. There is a land of light, yet it is beyond this universe. So all this teaching is within this universe, which is also very awesome. Great work. I really like this. What do you recomend on telekenisis? Peace and productivity.
Think about if everybody understood karma... Nobody would hurt other beings, destroy nature, start wars or just being unfriendly on an everyday level.
You are correct about that - the ego is the basis for compulsive rebirth. On the other hand there are those that are reborn for different reasons. Such as to fullfil promises made or out of a great desire to benefit others.
Karma is a teaching to maintain our innate happiness and well-being by not doing destructive harmful actions. Freeing the mind from egoism is a more subtle practice to free the mind from suffering that may arise to life's inevitabilities such as sickness, ageing and death. Buddha taught only the cessation of suffering. This is the essential matter.
Is karma inter-generational - as in "the sins of the father are visited on the son..."?
logotrix 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bit.ly / mGgRhJ Neues Buch von Ole "Nuetzlich sein" kann hier vorbestellt werden. Erscheint vorausichtlich im Juni 2011.
sindahir2 9 months ago
Cause and effect is not a guided process. Actions lead to their consequences and were caused by combinations of prior events in a vast network extending through time and space, but the idea that immoral acts bring suffering back on the soul which caused them necessitates a guiding moral arbiter. How could the impersonal nature of causality balance the human world in order to ensure that our successive lives are progressive, rather than random, without such a guiding force?
tecciztucatl 10 months ago
@tecciztucatl
I have to agree. To first say that karma simply means cause and effect and is a scientific principle, and then to move to the notion of reincarnation and moral baggage is a bit of a rhetorical tactic in my eyes. It seems like instead of starting with scientific premises and moving to metaphysical conclusions, he's starting with metaphysical premises and moving to scientific conclusions (thereby not actually engaging in science). It's not just him, though; lots of people do that.
Luc88Cole 4 months ago
I am kind of disturbed that he thinks that abortion is a bad and stupid thing....
MzHibou 1 year ago
@MzHibou Why are you?
I can tell you, if you are happy to be alive, and if you then remember that this would not be the case, if your parents would have decided to abort you... what are your impressions about it?
After all, abortion is a decision against life, and you should have really good reasons for it, I mean, REALLY GOOD ones. And if you see a chance to avoid it, you really should avoid it. Unborn does not automatically mean unconscious. Just like always: You should know what you do.
ballaststoffel2 10 months ago
@ballaststoffel2
Actually, it sort of does mean unconscious, depending on the phase. Even at the viability stage, the central nervous system isn't developed to the point of there being a cognitive apparatus.
I'm sorry, but by your line of reasoning, men should be morally accountable for unused ejaculate, women should have as many babies as possible before their ovaries dry up, and sex should only be for procreation. Frankly, that sounds like Catholicism.
Luc88Cole 4 months ago
@Luc88Cole I really don't know, how you can draw THAT picture of what I posted :-)
I just said, and I mean it absolutely: Abortion is killing life.
It is not up to me, to decide wether it is unconscious or not, since I don't know that, really. What you explain to me says: Unborn life cannot reflect or feel (as a body) its situation until a point of development.
I agree on that.
But does it also mean, that it is unconscious at all?
I would not agree on that.
ballaststoffel2 4 months ago
@ballaststoffel2
Essentially, my point is that the life of an embryo is contingent upon the life of the mother; just like any single cell in our body. If it's special because of its potential for autonomy, then it seems that the same argument could be made for gametes.
Secondly, without a developed central nervous system, consciousness is completely unfounded. If an entity without a cognitive membrane is somehow conscious, then I ask you this: how and where does consciousness manifest itself?
Luc88Cole 4 months ago
@Luc88Cole Well, the first question has to be: What IS consciousness. And before that is not clearly known, we can not decide wether consciousness needs a nervous system in order to EXIST, or wether consciousness USES a nervous system to be in the world together with a body. To get an idea of the difference, we could ask ourselves:
Is the awareness of all "things" a thing, or is it not? And exactly that we should not take from books, we should try to find it out.
ballaststoffel2 4 months ago
@ballaststoffel2
First: books and empirical data provide us with the necessary premises from which we can reason. Anything else is purely anecdotal and unworthy of intellectual consideration.
Second: if your suggestion is that the cognitive apparatus is merely a conduit through which a supernatural consciousness interacts with the physical world, then you have already acknowledged that underdeveloped fetus' have no consciousness, because it has no conduit for the consciousness to occupy.
Luc88Cole 4 months ago
@Luc88Cole
to 1) That is true as long as you are only collecting information to deal with. On the other hand, the experience of for example:'wet' cannot be achieved by reading its definition in a book.
to 2) I did not acknowledge that. There can be a worker in a room without hammer. Why should the abscence of a hammer implicitely mean the abscence of a worker?
And: 'Supernatural' is YOUR definition for what I mean. For me, it is completely natural, the essence of who you are. :-)
ballaststoffel2 4 months ago
@ballaststoffel2
1) Again, empirical observation.
2.) Fallacy of a false analogy. Your statement before was that consciousness uses a nervous system to be in the world together with a body. If this is true (it's not), then if there is no nervous system present, then the consciousness is floating elsewhere, and is not in the body. Therefore, the underdeveloped fetus is merely a body without consciousness.
3.) Well, you aren't talking about anything scientific, so I wouldn't call it natural : /
Luc88Cole 4 months ago
@Luc88Cole
1) ?
2) Your statement still is based on (more or less) reasonable assumptions on what consciousness IS. Together with the assumption (science has not prooven that, afaik), that the nervous system creates consciuosness. Be honest, that is a BELIEVE of scientists, not a prooven fact. I think, that you only observe how consciousness works, but not what it IS.
3) So, anything science does not talk about, is not natural? So, we can be happy that scientists talk about so much today :-)
ballaststoffel2 4 months ago
@ballaststoffel2
Actually, we have a very solid understanding of what consciousness it is through a combination of neurochemistry, evolutionary biology and phenomenology. And to ask for scientific proof is technically impossible; what science DOES provide, however, is 99.99999% certainty.
And no, I didn't assume that the nervous system creates consciousness in that statement. I used YOUR definitions and showed why a fetus doesn't have consciousness. Please read it more thoroughly.
Luc88Cole 4 months ago
@Luc88Cole
Are you conscious? And how do you know that?
ballaststoffel2 4 months ago
@ballaststoffel2
Cogito ergo sum.
Luc88Cole 4 months ago
@Luc88Cole So, you say because you are aware of your thinking, you have to be, because else, there could be no thought. OK, so far correct. Then here comes the next step:
Who is thinking? Are you your thought, the content of your thought, or the energy of your thought, or none of that all?
ballaststoffel2 4 months ago
@ballaststoffel2
Please, continue to reply with incoherent ramblings.
In your benefit, I am going to assume that English is not your first language.
With that said, good job for what you have said thus far! If you wish to continue this conversation, then let's find a proper translator.
Luc88Cole 4 months ago
@Luc88Cole Really mate there's no need to talk to people like that unless they're being nasty. I thought the question he asked you was quite lucid. If you look at his/her page you'll see he's from Germany, and I bet his English is a lot better than your German.
I think it's quite valid to ask what is it that constitutes 'me'. Am I my thoughts, am I the sense of self that is aware of my thoughts, or is it both or neither or... who knows for sure?
tecciztucatl 4 months ago
@Luc88Cole I agree with a lot of what you said in this convo, but I don't think we do have a 'very solid understanding of what consciousness is'. Of course we have good reasons for thinking it's nothing more than a material process, and lots of theories and data probing it's depths but isn't consciousness still widely regarded among scientists as one of the greatest mysteries of the world? Not that this gives anyone the right to fill the mysterious gaps with whatever nonsense they please!
tecciztucatl 4 months ago
@tecciztucatl
Yes we do have an understanding. It would take pages and perhaps an hour to thoroughly explain, but I'll do my best here:
There is a difference between receiving data and perceiving it. For example: if we merely received data, we wouldn't perceive motion - we would only see one still shot after another. We perceive motion because we have short-term memory, which recalls what happened no more than a split second earlier. Coupled with long term memory, we are capable of (cont'd)
Luc88Cole 4 months ago
@tecciztucatl
capable of tapping into past experiences in order to better interpret incoming data. More advanced central nervous systems (i.e. those of human beings) are even capable of turning completely inward (e.g. rationalizing, philosophizing or meditating).
When we act on impulse, we aren't acting consciously. It's subconscious activity. What's interesting is muscle memory, because it is an impulse that is learned through conscious practice. Pretty crazy, huh? Hope this makes sense :)
Luc88Cole 4 months ago
@Luc88Cole Could you post a link to an article that explains it? I think I understand the mechanisms you mentioned to some degree but it's a huge leap from there to a comprehensive understanding of how our subjective experiences work from the bottom up. I mean there are almost as many different theories as there are scientists. Google Sam Harris' blog and read his most recent 2 entries for one view: other equally emminent researchers will have completely different ideas.
tecciztucatl 4 months ago
@Luc88Cole I mean we're talking about an organ with around 100 billion neurons, each with thousands or tens of thousands of connections, and everyone I've read says we're just beginning to scratch its surface; 'neuroscience is in its infancy'. Science is all about empirical data and predictive power, so as strange as quantum theory is, we can trust it because its predictions are incredibly accurate. The tools we currently use to investigate the brain, as sophisticated as they are ...
tecciztucatl 4 months ago
@Luc88Cole ... actually have terribly poor resolution when we consider the complexity of what they're looking at. We can see that there's more activity in certain parts of the brain under various conditions but the reason I don't think our understanding is solid is that our predictive power for what a given consciousness will do is very poor. Sam Harris reckons it's not even possible to empirically verify that a being IS conscious from looking at brains; we have to assume it, if with good reason
tecciztucatl 4 months ago
@tecciztucatl
What we need to get down to here is, what do we mean when we ask, "What is consciousness?" Are we looking for a definition? Simple: awareness/perception. Are we looking for an explanation all the way down to the most precise neuro-chemical level? I concede, this remains shrouded in mystery. Our emotions? Neuro-chem 101. The aspects of experience? This is left to a combination of neuro-psych and phenomenology, and this is the kind of explanation I have provided. I recommend Husserl!
Luc88Cole 4 months ago
@Luc88Cole I googled Husserl but he died 150 years before neuroscience even started. You say you've provided an explanation of experience but I didn't get that - as I said, how is it even possible to empirically demonstrate that a person or animal actually IS conscious? The comprehensive understanding of consciousness that you said we already have would need to explain how these huge networks of individual cells give rise to an experience - otherwise it can't be called comprehensive.
tecciztucatl 4 months ago
@ballaststoffel2 I've been following your conversation with Luc88Cole and I might be able to clear up a misunderstanding. What we can tell about consciousness is that any time a brain is damaged, the mind is affected in a corresponding way. If the speech centre is totally destroyed that person no longer has any idea on how to speak, even though it was a big part of their personality before the damage. There are many similar examples that show that the mind is dependent on the brain.
tecciztucatl 4 months ago
@ballaststoffel2 If an immortal soul exists, and is natural as you suggest, then in some way it must manifest in the natural world and therefore in principle we should be able to detect it. Perhaps if we had sensitive enough instruments we could find it? If not then we have no good reason to believe it does exist. Feeling strongly that we have a soul isn't good enough - emotions and intuition are too often wrong.
tecciztucatl 4 months ago
@tecciztucatl Thanks for your intervention :-)
In your brain-damage-example, is there prooven more than that a tool is broken?
If someone has a brain damage and can not speak anymore, but can still write the words down (instead of saying them) what exactly is then broken? The consciousness or a tool through which consciousness can express itself.
Following this line, the question is: Is there consciousness without carrier, or is it not. Or, can you find yourself not being a thing?
ballaststoffel2 4 months ago
@ballaststoffel2 Language is more than just a tool; the words and sentences we have at our disposal define a great deal about our minds. Certainly my stream of consciousness involves a lot of language. Some brain damage strikes right to the core: there's a case of a man who was in a car accident and lost all his empathy. He no longer felt any love for his wife or child - a heartbreaking case, but what could be more central to our identity than our love for friends and family?
tecciztucatl 4 months ago
@tecciztucatl Yes, I thought a while about it, and I think you are right. But the question is:
Can you, even if you do not know anymore how to speak, even if you do not remember who is who, or what is what, if you forgot all you learned, can you still be conscious?
And I say: YES, absolutely.
ballaststoffel2 4 months ago
@ballaststoffel2 I think it can be as you say, that a patient has the same vocabulary and can write fluently but cannot speak - or all language can be wiped out - it all depends where the brain is damaged and how much is lost. Damage to the prefrontal cortex for example can result in a loss of inhibition, causing people to do terribly inappropriate things that they don't even know are wrong anymore - these can be permanent changes in personality.
tecciztucatl 4 months ago
@tecciztucatl I agree, but the question for consciousness cannot be answered by personality. Personality is changeable, and I assume mostly founded on habits, remembering and knowledge, beside what the environment gives us to deal with. You can call any kind of reaction personal. But, what is conscious no matter HOW you react, no matter what you think, no matter what you've learned. There IS consciousness, which you can be aware of. No need to be able to do anything.
ballaststoffel2 4 months ago
@tecciztucatl But if the consciousness is not aware, then it identifies with everything it THINKS to be. So you can think: I am a very kind person. I have studied physics. I own a house and I have a lot of money. I am a hero, I am a looser, I am a thinker, dreamer, sportsman, good lover, bad lover. I am a collection of atoms, I am strong, I am the husband of my wife, etc... etc..
But that is not what you are, that is what you (and others) think you are, and that can change when brain is damaged.
ballaststoffel2 4 months ago
Danke. You reminded me to do my 100 syllable mantra. Om Benza Sato Hung.
ikhamo 1 year ago
continue the dharma
ikhamo 1 year ago
He is so amazing, grounded and the reason I became a Buddhist! I love this man. In person he is gentle, caring and I wish I could attend his leactures in person.
This karma lecture is great! Depth and close to old senses.
walktumi 1 year ago
I enjoyed the lecture. I think that Lama Ole Nydahl does a very good job explaining karma, but to really understand one's own karma and by extension, to better understand the karma of others, one must meditate. To simply go from shamata to vipassana is a great achievement in any life.
ironpirites 1 year ago
@ironpirites
amen to that!
regarding the understanding of karma I've always thought that its not necessary to completely understand it. I think a useful view is to have some confidence that karma functions, then try and do our best in the situations life presents.
freeflymike 1 year ago 3
@freeflymike I agree.
The moment when dharma students realize that dharma is about realization and not explanation, is a huge moment in their lives, but everyone needs some explanation too. Thanks for posting this excellent explanation.
ironpirites 1 year ago
Why was my questions deleted? Afraid of an open Dialogue? I didn't offend anyone? So what happened in your mind?
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
@agnostoatomo Not sure why anyone would delete anything you write. I don't mind a dialogue as long as I have time, but if you direct anything to me be sure to indicate that., so I can be sure I should respond.
ironpirites 1 year ago
No,this was not adressed 2 u,except if u would have been able 2 delete my comment & done so.
The reason why i referred 2 the comparison between scientific cause&effect & Karma according 2 some Dharmatraditions is,because Ole Nydahl did so & said it is not a belief but fact.I agree with u that Buddhism has an antidukkha agenda & uses explanations according 2 the mental capacities of the listener.The Buddha made very clear that whatever he said is a pointing out 2 and not THE final truth itself.
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
@agnostoatomo The scientific approach to psychology illustrates the difference between what the Buddha thought important and what science considers important. In science one sees elaborate enumerations of symptoms. Causes are researched in chemistry and psychology. Mental balance is sometimes restored. But Buddhism applies meditation as a universal solvent to any mental suffering. Both use observation and logic as tools but science, except for quantum mechanics, bolsters the "material" world.
ironpirites 1 year ago
Comment removed
ironpirites 1 year ago
@ironpirites @ironpirites Lama Ole Nydahl undoubtedly has good reasons for referencing science in discussions with his students. Science has great prestige in our world. But students of the history of science can tell anyone that science does not always deserve the prestige it is accorded and does not always properly use the tools of logic and observation. The scientific attitude is a rare thing, even among scientists.
ironpirites 1 year ago
Since the Buddha taught Anatman,NO Ego,who is reborn and encounters Karma?
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
@agnostoatomo The person who doesn't realize what the Buddha was teaching, the person who believes in his ego, who is not aware of interdependant origination and who does not realize the void nature of ego. If you believe you are Hamlet, you will be a great Hamlet. If you don't really think you are Hamlet, you will be lousy at it. The Buddha was lousy at egotism. I'm much better at it thatn he was. You may be even better than I. I hope not.
ironpirites 1 year ago
Comment removed
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ironpirites So than ego is just an illusion based on belief,right?Than Karma is ,according to what you said,based on this and in this way an illusion too,otherwise there is noone who encounters Karma,right?
IF this is right than it's waaay different to the scientific understanding of cause&effect(even if this may be just a belief too)and it's a factor of a beliefsystem and not a fact!
agnostoatomo 1 year ago
@agnostoatomo Buddhism doesn't study karma the way science studies cause and effect. Science studies materials and their interactions. Buddhism studies mental productions and their consequences. Buddhism is a way of thinking designed to remove suffering. If you have a bad dream and see it and yourself as reality you can suffer greatly. If you have a bad life and regard it and yourself as an illusion you can remove the mental disturbances caused by your situation.
ironpirites 1 year ago
@ironpirites I jumped into this because I saw some interesting questions. I haven't seen the video, above. Science studies materials and their cause and effect relationships exhaustively. Buddhism is aware of cause and effect and enumerates some of those causes and effect but not exhaustively. Buddhism's concern is to relieve suffering through the study of the productions of the mind. When they are understood as essentially void in nature mental (and sometimes physical) suffering evaporates.
ironpirites 1 year ago
Lama Ole Nydahl
SupKaG 1 year ago
the way he describes the mind sounds very similar to the atman...
ElPapasanga 1 year ago
Thank you Lama. You are the best of both worlds. The logical, sciencetific western mind and the intuitive, holistic eastern mind.
psychoaaa 2 years ago
I was abused as a child, and I dn't get along with dad especially dad. it has been a long time cinse I saw them, I can't forgive them, I wonder if that's bad karma. what I know is the beating and constant dimeaning broke my soul in some way. my studies and my trust in human beings. my karma is good most of the time, I like to help people but people around me harm me mentally.
angelyouknew2 3 years ago
I also had a lousy childhood. I think the part of these teachings that helps people like us is not the teachings on karma but the part about the nature of our minds--that they are space that is self-aware and that nothing can hurt your mind. It's eternal and while because of our childhoods bad thoughts and feelings can arise they are passing and impermanent, like clouds in the sky (or storms that come and go) and that the eternal essence that's always there isn't affected by them. it helps me.
Saffron333 2 years ago
wow, you put it so well!!!! thank you for helping me understand, thank you so so much!
angelyouknew2 2 years ago
I'm so sorry you had a bad childhood. I did too and wanted to offer you something that has helped me and I hope it helps you just as much. I realised that I am not a slave to my nasty parents anymore, I don't have to try and impress them or get them to like me. I can let that go and start feeling good without them. I have the power to do that now. I no longer seek their approval. Blessings to you and a big hug to you from me. x
AmyK007 2 years ago
thank you for your kind words and your hug. all you said was true. they lost power when I left home, this way they can no longer harm me.
angelyouknew2 2 years ago
Well done. May you continue on your path with love and wisdom.
AmyK007 2 years ago
@angelyouknew2 Practising fundamental "tranquillity" meditation will help you calm your mind. After practising that successfully the mind switches gears into "insight" meditation, in which realizations about your situation will begin to spontaneously arise. That process will lead to a clear appreciation of the causes of your suffering and especially of their interdependant origination and essentially void nature. You will be able to navigate in life much more fruitfully after that.
ironpirites 1 year ago
Lama Ole is a political incorrect buddhist. He don´t kiss butt and refuse to be the buddhist the establishment want him to be. Lama Ole dont hate Islam, he just have the guts to say open what a lot of people think, but with pure wisdom.
morrink 3 years ago
he is the best
helenoleynik 3 years ago
I disagree.. I would rather want a teacher who tells the truth bluntly and effectively..
BuddhaHippie 3 years ago 4
thanks
ommozy 3 years ago
"We're all the time building our life's" is on the other hand very individualistic thought. It sits well with the meritocracy of western culture.
It takes away 'chance' as an explanation. I think chance is a real explanation for many things. Thinking that wise and happy person is what she/he is, because of something, and unhappy person in a bad situation also caused his/her suffering and chace doesn't come in to it... it's kind of playing by the rules this competitive culture.
MrDarwinist83 3 years ago
Thanks for posting this. I could watch a hundred of this guy.
Saffron333 3 years ago 6
The period of seven weeks after death .. what external and internal changes are observed from the body in that time?
daveyork0 4 years ago
He looks a lot better than Sting despite being older. That comes from the benefit of his Buddhist practice.
Not to say, tho, that Sting hasn't cultivated good karma for his being.
daveyork0 4 years ago
This guy looks like Sting. He's sending out an s.o.s on the laws of Karma. Good stuff
theuntamedbuffalo 4 years ago 5
LOL untamedbuffalo. I knew he reminded me of someone but i never thought of it til you said it. I've been watching him for a bit now. Yah, he's good. Authentic lama.
jmbsol 4 years ago
no.
she did not so positive things in former lives. it was not her, it was a former existence who did negative things. one can be a nice little girl with a lot of good karma (nice parents, education, health, beauty, whatever9 and as well be catched by karmic boomerangs of countless former lives.
sad but true. buddhism teaches to cut through this mechanism and change it forever.
johndoe108 4 years ago
All very nice. But basically he's saying that Anne Frank got what she deserved. Isn't he?
RepublicOfEngland 4 years ago
The idea of Karma in Buddhism is not to tell people that they "deserve" what happens to them. It is like telling smokers that smoking is harmful. They may don't like to hear it, but knowing it they can try to change.
Nobody deserves to suffer, because people make the seeds for their suffering out of ignorance. It's like saying a small child who climbs up and fall out of a window deserves getting killed, but how could it know? (Sorry, terrible example, but I think it is clear).
1FreeJoker 4 years ago 7
if i walk around and intentionally think negative thoughts for a whole year, it will effect my life for the rest of my life. now apply this to rebirth. if you were negative your whole life you'll be negative in your next. unless you become awake to this fact.. in which case you then can change it..
petersilk 3 years ago 3
fantastic! what is the name of this teaching/schools?
maswad 4 years ago
Diamondway Buddhism, Karma Kagyu Linage
1FreeJoker 4 years ago
Thanks bro.!
kirk7524875248 4 years ago
I wasn't able to download this, but from what I've read, there is not only no self, but no consciousness, no ego,(in the Tibetan Buddhist thought), after we die. It all, level by level, dissolves. So what is it that's reborn. If everything is really just one, non-dual, than the idea of a rebirth is just another illusion of the ego. No?
kirk7524875248 4 years ago
there's definately a consciousness. You are using it right now. It's just that things are not exactly as they appear. If I understand it correctly the reality we each experience is largely self created.
On the absolute or essential level of mind though it would be quite correct to say that even rebirth is an illusion.
You should find a qualified Lama and as this question face to face. I'm sure you would get an answer that would satisfy you.
try kagyu net
freeflymike 4 years ago
@kirk7524875248 The one, non-dual that you describe is the state of mind of the Buddha passing into nirvana. Then there is no re-birth. Ordinary people carry their "self consciousness" along with them to whatever rebirth their habitual behavior patterns have prepared themselves for.
ironpirites 1 year ago
Interesting, you are right in saying there is no judging entity out there, in this universe... but beyond this universe there is God the almighty, and angels etc. There is a land of light, yet it is beyond this universe. So all this teaching is within this universe, which is also very awesome. Great work. I really like this. What do you recomend on telekenisis? Peace and productivity.
DreHectik 4 years ago
Think about if everybody understood karma... Nobody would hurt other beings, destroy nature, start wars or just being unfriendly on an everyday level.
Nuzofish 5 years ago 2
2) What - if there is no ego - is there to be reborn?
rubberbernd00 5 years ago
You are correct about that - the ego is the basis for compulsive rebirth. On the other hand there are those that are reborn for different reasons. Such as to fullfil promises made or out of a great desire to benefit others.
freeflymike 5 years ago
Karma is a teaching to maintain our innate happiness and well-being by not doing destructive harmful actions. Freeing the mind from egoism is a more subtle practice to free the mind from suffering that may arise to life's inevitabilities such as sickness, ageing and death. Buddha taught only the cessation of suffering. This is the essential matter.
BarbarraBay 5 years ago