andy_d

Indeed, it is a bit far-fetched. But I don't believe that this type of thing is expounded by Buddhism.

I've highlighted the words above because they seem to be parts which make the idea so ridiculous. Are you one person now?

Regarding the transfer of information idea: all karmic impressions are created in the mind as the accompanying thoughts/actions occur. The location of karmic impressions is in the mind.

Buddhism doesn't hold that the mind exists in a discrete space located between your ears, it teaches that the mind is space, and that space is information. My understanding would be that the information therefore has no distance to travel.

TheSerpentLord

andy_d,

Thats a very interesting. Can you please explain a bit more. I always thought (even as a Buddhist) that the mind was basically the working of the brain and the nervous system. How is mind space?

Volker.Doormann

Hi SerpendLord

The arguing person is Walpola Rahula, and he has spoken from a Self: “Therefore, it is quite clear that, according to this statement: 'All dhammas are without Self', there is no Self, .. “. What other as a Self is Walpola Rahula, who is arguing?
Who is him, who do not believe? Not a person? Not a Self? You personally do not believe. Are you not a person? Who is you, who states this unbelieving? If you reject yourSelf as soul and/or as Self - Who is that, who rejects? Is it your hand, who reject? What is the exakt thing: 'you' ? Who do agree with Buddhists? A nonSelf?

If you disbelieve, that you are not a soul, that has a physical body with a physical mind, and this soul is not to detect, it is only a personal idea or creation of the physical mind. No one ever can prove, that there is no soul, but each one is able to recognize the own inner soul behind the Self (mind). That, what is, is not a point of personal belief or disbelieve, because this is a self-made idea as there are billions of them created from persons or Self’s. That, what is, is only to be recognized. Physical properties of nature are only to be recognized by forces and spiritual properties are only to be recognized by the soul. There is no other detector to perceive truth or love as the immaterial soul, because truth and love have no physical properties, which can be detected as forces. Who other as a soul can re_cognize, that there are no contradictions in the order of nature? Who other as a soul can recognize a truth and/or an untruth? A brain?
If this idea would be an eternal truth, it would not be changeable. But if Buddhists believe, that there is no permanent truth to be recognize, it is easy to recognize as truth, that the truth of this Buddhist belief is of no worth, because they have no absolute reference to recognize a truth. Again, only who is recognizing himself as a soul who is able to recognize truth and perceive love as absolute attributes of the spiritual nature, is. Him, who denies himself, is not. Are you, or are you not?

BTW. AFAIR the Buddha has spoken some words about his own recognition in the Majjhima Nikaya, M. 26. (III,6) Ariyapariyesana Sutta (Sorry for no cite - I read this in German only).
Who will realize nibbana? A mortal body? A mortal brain? A mortal mind? A person, which is the physical mind?

Nothing of mortal - speak physical - material has any relation to it, as gold has no relation to logic or truth. It is meant - I think - that this stupid impermanent personal self, loaded with an ever busy physical thinking has come to still, only then in this silence - where no thought, no Karma do disturb this silence - there is it possible for a part of a second, that there is no imperfect person ever, and there is only being and consciousness.

Volker

lugotorix

For the sake of argument say that the Tibetan version of rebirth happens -- there is a chain of of moments of awareness leading from death to rebirth spent in an intermediate state called the bardo. If the information that comprised this stream-of-awareness were propagated to the distant galaxy at near light-speed, it would experience time differently than an Earth-bound observer. What would seem like millions of years to us might be experienced by the awareness as one lifetime spent in the bardo. Since special relativity does away with the notion of an 'absolute' time scale, its subjective experience of time passing would be just as valid as ours.

lugotorix

lugotorix

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
The arguing person is Walpola Rahula, and he has spoken from a Self: “Therefore, it is quite clear that, according to this statement: 'All dhammas are without Self', there is no Self, .. “. What other as a Self is Walpola Rahula, who is arguing?

The collection of skandhas conventionally known as Walpola Rahula was arguing. The fact that causes and conditions have brought those aggregates together doesn't imply that there is a soul or a permanent entity behind them.


No one ever can prove, that there is no soul, but each one is able to recognize the own inner soul behind the Self (mind).

It's impossible to prove any unqualified negative, so that is not surprising. According to the Buddha, it is possible to experience anatta, though. That's what liberation essentially is.


Who will realize nibbana? A mortal body? A mortal brain? A mortal mind? A person, which is the physical mind?


Nobody will realize nibbana. Here's a quote from the Diamond Sutra that says as much:
lugotorix

paul30

I am a Buddhist, and I have always thought the idea of rebirth was an unresolved mess in Buddhism.

According to the Buddha, there is no self. So what is it that is reborn?????

Volker.Doormann

Buddha said: "this is my last existence; no more shall I be born again." If he has recognized this, then he has also recognized that he has lived other lifes. Because no atom of a physical body can be taken into another life, you can define yourself, what is that, that is to be reborn. But I think it is more helpful to recognize the own self, that can be aware about this consciousness of the soul, next to the personal self. Who other as the soul can recognize the order beyond the material world?

Please note: www.buddhadust.org/warren_bit/bit-71.htm Ariyapariyesana Sutta, Translated from the Majjhima-Nik¤ya, and constituting Sutta 26
....
"And craving, O priests, the summum bonum, the incomparable peaceful state, I came in the course of my journeyings among the Magadhans to Uruvel¤ the General's Town. There I perceived a delightful spot with an enchanting grove of trees, and a silvery flowing river, easy of approach and i delightful, and a village near by in which to beg. And it occurred to me, O priests, as follows:

"'Truly, delightful is this spot, enchanting this grove of trees, and this silvery river flows by, easy of approach and delightful, and there is a village near by in which to beg. Truly, there is here everything necessary for a youth of good family who is desirous of struggling.'

"And there I settled down, O priests, as everything was suitable for struggling.

"And being, O priests, myself subject to birth, I perceived the wretchedness of what is subject to birth, and craving the incomparable security of a Nirvana free from birth, I attained the incomparable security of a Nirvana free from birth; myself subject to old age, . . . disease, . . . death, . . . sorrow, . . . corruption, I perceived the wretchedness of what is subject to corruption, and craving the incomparable security of a Nirvana free from corruption, I attained the incomparable security of a Nirvana free from corruption. And the knowledge and the insight sprang up within me, 'My deliverance is unshakable; this is my last existence; no more shall I be born again.' ...

bagong

Thanks, now I understand the problem. To give a proper Theravaadin answer will require use of Abhidhamma classifications of conditionality, for which I'm completely unqualified, but I'll try my best:

As I understand it, pa.tisandhi-viññaa.na (relinking-consciousness; the first moment of consciousness in the womb) arises through vipaaka-paccaya (karma-resultant condition). Unlike most of the other 24 forms of Abhidhammic conditionality (and conditionality as commonly understood in Western science), vipaaka conditionality does not require the cause to be in physical proximity to the effect. I don't know whether Abhidhamma ever offers an explanation of the mechanism by which this is possible; given the Abhidhamma's exhaustive (and exhausting!) attention to detail, it wouldn't surprise me if there's a complete analysis of the process of vipaaka-paccaya burried in the Pa.t.thaana somewhere. You'll have to ask a real Abhidhamma expert.

That the Buddha did not believe in the actual travel of any "information" or "mind-substance" or whatever between rebirths is made clear by his claim that a human can be reborn in the Sphere of Formlessness, which is not located at *any* distance from us, no matter how large. It is simply a completely different dimension, physical travel to which is impossible.

So I guess the "official" Buddhist answer would fall under your option 1: kamma does not cause results in the same way that sound waves create an echo (although this is one of the favorite analogies for the process of rebirth in the Milinda-pañhaa), and therefore it is not beholden to the same physical laws. I don't see why this is problematic; after all kamma is clearly not a physical entity, so why would you expect it to behave like one?

I'm also puzzled by your use of the term "physical rebirth". In a Buddhist context, this could only refer to the rebirth of the ruupa-khandha, which clearly is not the case. So your option number 2 is also acceptable to Abhidhamma theory, and does not contradict option 1.

muon

Thanks for the discussion. I'm not convinced, however, that this kind of abhidhammic analysis avoids the problem. Kamma is clearly not a physical entity, but it definitely is believed to have physical effects and consequences, even if these effects are indirect. For example, if kamma in any way conditions emotions, and those emotions have physical correlates, then there is a physical effect of kamma.

Special relativity makes a very strong claim----it is not merely that no physical
entity can travel at greater than the speed of light. It claims that information itself is limited to this speed. Anything that can cause a physical effect, including kamma, would be covered.

Your example of the Sphere of Formlessness is interesting. This probably does get around the problem---if you assume a completely nonphysical realm of existence, then obviously special relativity isn't a problem. But the problem still remains for rebirth within our own universe. Special relativity simply forbids instantaneous rebirth in a different galaxy within our universe.

Again, if you want to, you can simply declare that the laws of relativity are incorrect or incomplete. That's logically consistent, and certainly possible. But it does require you to throw out a very solid law of physics on a rather flimsy basis!

What I mean by "physical rebirth" is the three-lives interpretation of the law of dependent origin. Some people would prefer the term "literal rebirth". I am distinguishing this from the moment-to-moment interpretation of rebirth that can be found in the Abhidhamma, and in such writers as Buddhadasa. The moment-to-moment interpretation has no issues with relativity that I can see!

Cheers,
Scott O.

andy_d

It is interesting, isn't it?

I'm not much more than a beginner myself, but i'll try to explain what I think I know about it.

"Mind is space" means simply that. The mind is not seen as a discrete object with finite limits, it is seen as the space in which all things (thoughts, perceptions, etc) can be perceived.

A common metaphor is that the mind is a mirror. All of what we perceive as being our reality are like the objects in the mirror, but they are not the mirror itself. Not even your thoughts are the true nature of your mind. Your mind is an unlimited clear space, in which the full richness of reality can manifest itself.

The goal of Buddhism is to try and gain a more and more direct experience of this true mind, and thus have a much better perspective on reality. It's not considered good enough to suffer from the misconception that objects in a mirror are real in themselves. They have value, but only in relation to the mirror.

Basically, what it all boils down to is that the brain (and everything else) exists because of the mind, not the other way around.

Hope that makes at least a little sense.