Re: Are Karma and Rebirth For Real?

14/10/2558
DharmaWheelViewtopicAreKarmaandRebirthReal?
ABuddhistdiscussionforumonMahayanaandVajrayanaBuddhism
Search
Search
Advancedsearch
Are Karma and Rebirth Real?

Forumrules
Postareply
Searchthistopic
Search
773postsPage8of391...5,6,7,8,9,10,11...39
Reportthispost(./report.php?f=66&p=63012)
Replywithquote(./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=63012)
Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63012)

bygroundWedOct26,20116:49pm
Dechen Norbu wrote:

TMingyur wrote:
Be that as it may ... from within the context of the teachings volitional
formations manifesting of the kind "there is rebirth" or "there is no
rebirth" will lead to further being born.
However there is a difference when there is fear or aversion or being
worried about when it happens. This was the meaning intended with the
term "embrace".
All this fancy discursive fabrications about "rebirth" won't help ... what is
of help however is the eightfold path which entails cessation of
speculations and equanimous and/or joyful letting go.
Kind regards
If death is annihilation, it really doesn't matter, because there will be no

further "being born".
If this then that but if that then this. When there is this there is that. When this has ceased
then that disappears as well.
Dechen Norbu wrote:

The Noble Eightfold Path starts and ends with Right View.
You say it.
Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In
one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right
speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right
action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of
right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5678&start=140
1/14
14/10/2558
concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of

right knowledge, right release comes into being.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html)
kind regards
Top

byKyosanWedOct26,20116:57pm
edearl wrote:
I am studying the 37 factors of enlightenment and Bodhipakkhiydhamm
(whewa mouth full) and find almost all of it reasonable and acceptable. At
the moment I have only one issue, faith. That's because my family, mom
especially, said, "Trust me. Have faith in Christianity," but my family and
church are bigoted, intolerant, vindictive, and have other incredible beliefs.
That experience has made me mistrust anyone who states a belief and expects
me believe it because of trust. In my opinion, blind faith is an ugly thing
because an otherwise good person can be led to do bad things. On the other
hand, one cannot live their lives without faith. Math and logic simply cannot
scientifically prove everything needed to live ones life. Faith filtered by reason
is OK and needed. Needless to say, I was very impressed that the Buddha said
don't blindly trust me, think about my philosophy and if it makes sense, follow
me. That was the start of my epiphany, and it continues as I learn more. It is as
if the Buddha read my mind, figured out many things I had been unable to work
out, and now is telling me the things I want to know.
I felt like shouting EPIPHANY, meaning "a sudden, intuitive perception of or
insight into the reality or essential meaning of something," (Dictionary.com)
I looked up the definition, and found that it is also a Christian festivalnot
what I meant.
There are many Christians like that. They profess their faith but don't follow the words of
Jesus and think that they just need to believe and they will be saved. But I know some
Christians who are really open minded, compassionate and care about others. There are
mystic traditions in Christianity that, like Buddhism, focus on things like nonduality and
compassion. And, I think that Christian theology is not as simplistic as the beliefs of the
common folks. You see the same thing in Buddhism. Many Buddhists go to a temple and pray
and ask Quan Yin (Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva) for things and think of him as a goddess. Do
they comprehend the Dharma? Probably most of them don't comprehend it very much.
I agree that faith is needed. I like the way you put it "faith filtered by reason". Or maybe I
would call it "faith filtered by insight".Totaly blind faith is not a good thing. In fact, one
2/14
14/10/2558
important thing I learned from Buddhism (mainly from the "Sutra of Innummerable Meanings")
is that all beings interpret things differently. So the Buddhist dharma, or possibly even the
teachings of another religion, is interpreted differently by different beings. Each being tends
to think that their interpretation is what the teaching really is. But when we communicate,
we are not communicating words, we are communicating meanings. So what meaning is
correct, the meaning that I get or the meaning that someone else gets? So when we put faith
in some words ,we are really putting faith in our interpretation of the words. Our
interpretation of the words may not be the same as the intended meaning of the words. For
that reason we must use our wisdom to decipher what the intended meaning really is. Many
people, without knowing this, see or hear the words and think they understand and latch on
to that.
If you otherwise like Buddhism and see value in it please don't let the thing about
reincarnation, rebirth or whatever it's called, discourage you. And don't let people tell you
what you must believe. Through your own wisdom you must decide what you believe. You can
put faith in a teacher who you trust but even blind faith in a teacher isn't a good thing. The
Buddha, when he was practicing the way, had walked away from several teachers. He used
his own wisdom to decide what to believe and what not to believe.
The Buddhas words have resonated with me also. I like the fact that he encourages us to look
deeply into things and understand them ourselves. It looks to me like you will probably
become/stay a Buddhist. If so, I think you will be a great Buddhist.
Did you know that Epiphany is also the name of a Linux based web browser. Silly me, I
thought that a fellow geek was telling me what web browser he uses.
Top

byedearlWedOct26,20117:41pm
Kyosan wrote:
It looks to me like you will probably become/stay a Buddhist. If so, I think you
will be a great Buddhist.
I am not a quick study and doubt that I would become a great Buddhist, even if I were young.
I will remain Buddhist because Buddhist beliefs and mine have much in common.
Kyosan wrote:
Did you know that Epiphany is also the name of a Linux based web browser.
Silly me, I thought that a fellow geek was telling me what web browser he uses.
Yes, but I use Firefox.
3/14
14/10/2558
Top

byedearlWedOct26,20117:44pm
edearl wrote:
meant to edit, sorry.
I know all Christians are not as fundamentalist as my family, and that there are
good Christians.
Kyosan wrote:
It looks to me like you will probably become/stay a Buddhist. If so, I
think you will be a great Buddhist.
I am not a quick study and doubt that I would become a great Buddhist, even if I
were young. I will remain Buddhist because Buddhist beliefs and mine have
much in common.
Kyosan wrote:
Did you know that Epiphany is also the name of a Linux based web
browser. Silly me, I thought that a fellow geek was telling me what web
browser he uses.
Yes, but I use Firefox.
Top

byAcchantikaThuOct27,20112:00am
deepbluehum wrote:
This quip, while sounding spiritual, completely misses the mark. I haven't said
one should behave compassionately for fear of punishment, nor have I said not
to question beliefs for fear of what they might entail. You all are conditioned
by the Church. I don't have the problem. The teaching on karma is very simple
and verifiable. Good deeds result in pleasure and a higher rebirth; bad deeds
result in pain and a lower rebirth. The path provides the methods to test these.
You do not have a sound working basis to test these until the methods are
taught to you. Until then, you will have to go on faith that the methods will do
the job.
4/14
14/10/2558
Again you are just waxing poetic to get fools to chime in; again, completely off
the mark. The abovecited sutta states that a beginner has to trust the Buddha
first, then later, the answers become clear. The point is that you never just
believe their is karma or rebirth, just because the Buddha said so. But you also
don't disbelieve it and distrust the Buddha. You keep an open mind, "this is the
teaching of the Omniscient one," and you proceed along the path step by step
slowly verifying the trust behind the Master's words.
Seriously, you Westerners need to drop the New Age Guru aspirations or you will
be left in the dust. This is the degenerate age. Dharma will not be here for
long.
This quip, while sounding spiritual, completely misses the mark. I haven't said one should
behave righteously for fear of punishment, nor have I said not to question beliefs for fear of
what they might entail. You all are conditioned by the Indians. I don't have the problem. The
teaching on sin is very simple and verifiable. Good deeds result in pleasure and entry into
heaven; bad deeds result in pain and entry into hell. The path provides the methods to test
these. You do not have a sound working basis to test these until the methods are taught to
you. Until then, you will have to go on faith that the methods will do the job.
Again you are just waxing poetic to get fools to chime in; again, completely off the mark. The
above cited gospel states that a beginner has to trust Jesus first, then later, the answers
become clear. The point is that you never just believe their is heaven or a soul, just because
Jesus said so. But you also don't disbelieve it and distrust Jesus. You keep an open mind, "this
is the teaching of the Lamb of God," and you proceed along the path step by step slowly
verifying the trust behind the Lord's words.
Seriously, you Easterners need to drop the Iron Age aspirations or you will be left in the dust.
This is the end times. The Good News will not be here for long.
Top

bydeepbluehumThuOct27,20112:19am
Sarcasm. I pray you overcome that hate within.

Top

bydeepbluehumThuOct27,20112:23am
Your hatred of the Church is your issue. Other religions have many good merits.
Top

bycoldmountainThuOct27,20112:52am
5/14
14/10/2558
I think there's more than sarcasm here. If there's one thing in common that devotees of any
religion tend to have is that they take their own narrative at face value. If there's one thing
that Westerners tend to have in common is an acute awareness that every single religion
claims this. Pluralism, not the church, is the problem. To someone aware of competing
claims, any claim based solely on an appeal to religious authority all sounds exactly the same.
I'm not sure you realize just how much so. At this level, Buddha and Jesus, the church and the
sangha, become one and the same voice.
I am getting a distinct impression that Easterners, or 'native Buddhists' if I can use such a
term, don't understand Western culture in the slightest, else they'd be more conscientious in
their use of skillful means. Premodern Christians wouldn't understand Western culture in the
slightest either, because as I said, pluralism is the issue.
Much like the last fellow who said I was merely 'clinging to my disbelief in rebirth'. Hardly. If
anything I'm looking for good reasons to trust in the Dharma, but one thing many people don't
seem to appreciate is that people of other cultures come from drastically different
conditions. Collectively we are no more inclined to be convinced of karma and rebirth than
you are to walk down the aisle of a church and get saved by the blood of Jesus. I am
disappointed by the lack of tact and understanding on these forums; the mindset is often
identical to that of the church but not merely the church but any premodern, pre
pluralistic religious disposition. The church is often used as an example merely because it is
the dominant religion of the West, but any example could suffice.
I am most amazed that people would rather turn others away from the Dharma than have a
rational and tactful discussion on things. This can only do harm, and therefore can only
accumulate bad karma. Perhaps if it's just one individual one could justifiably dismiss them as
especially stupid or foolish, but this is an entire culture of people. For each person zealously
dismissed, doubtless hundreds or thousands get the message that Buddhism is no different
than any other religion: it demands credulous assent to apparently arbitrary beliefs. My point
here is that if one is going to engage someone fruitfully, one has to understand where they
are coming from and appreciate that. If this can't be done, then both parties are wasting
their time. An unwillingness to meet someone in the middle and work from their own
presuppositions bespeaks either a lack of sympathy or intellectual laziness.
Peace.
Top

byAcchantikaThuOct27,20112:54am
deepbluehum wrote:
Your hatred of the Church is your issue. Other religions have many good merits.
I apologise if I came off as sarcastic. I felt I was misintepreted when "waxing poetic" so I tried
a different approach. I don't hate other religions.
My point was that every religion expounds the same rhetoric that is being repeated here,
6/14
14/10/2558
that once one is open to an idea they can verify it in their own experience. I think that often
people actually just intepret their experience according to a prior belief, which is
reinforcement, not verification. Encouraging this means that people end up both adhering to
concepts and reifying meditative experience. These are both antithetical to practice,
whether you are a beginner or not. I don't think this is what Buddha meant by testing the
ideas, and this "testibility" is so crucial that I think it is a great mistake to conflate it with the
same dogmatic rhetoric in other systems. It seems to me that he understood clearly that true
verification is impossible, but falsification isn't. This is very important, I believe. I think that
intepreting karma to be a mere Universal reward system is vastly underestimating its
meaning, and will turn us all into compassiobots.
But I appreciate your praying for me. I need all the help I can get.
Top

byKyosanThuOct27,20115:57am
from the Dalai Lama

"To study Buddhism and then use it as a weapon in order to criticize others'
theories or ideologies is wrong. The very purpose of religion is to control
yourself, not to criticize others. Rather, we must criticize ourselves. How much
am I doing about my anger? About my attachment, about my hatred, about my
pride, my jealousy? These are the things which we must check in daily life with
the knowledge of the Buddhist teachings."
"A Talk to Western Buddhists" p. 87
I think that is the main thing. And if we do try to help others by speaking to them, we need to
meet them where they are at; what we say has to be reasonable to them. It's about helping
them use their wisdom to decide, not about imposing our views on them.
from the Dalai Lama

"I don't want to convert people to Buddhism all major religions, when
understood properly, have the same potential for good."
"Fundamentalism is terrifying because it is based purely on emotion, rather
than intelligence. It prevents followers from thinking as individuals and about
the good of the world."
Daily Telegraph interview (2006)
Could it be that the Dalai Lama is a New Ager? Naw, perish the thought. Sorry, I couldn't
resist.
I think this shows that the Dalai Lama doesn't believe that metaphysical beliefs are
important, since different religions have different metaphysics.
7/14
14/10/2558
I think he is saying that thinking of the "good of the world" (having compassion for all sentient
beings) and thinking as individuals is more important than strict adherence to religious
doctrine. And he is saying that if we are fundamentalists (are attached to the doctrine) that
can impede us spiritually.
Top

bySherabDorjeThuOct27,20118:43am
The Dalai Lama has pointed out the difference between spirituality and religiosity MANY
times.
Top

byThug4lyfeThuOct27,201110:13am
Hmmm, maybe it's just a case of westerners, Easterners mistaken eachother's weakness as
strength.
Typical Eastern Obstruction:
Greed from hoping to gain merit by practicing and making offerings
Superficial cultivation just to appear pure to please the Monastics
Typical Western Obstruction:
Misinterpret the teaching to suit one's habits
Attachment to Christianity, in turn gets attached to philsophical speculations, science and
athiesm.
Top

byedearlThuOct27,201110:41am
Food_Eatah wrote:
Attachment to Christianity, in turn gets attached to philsophical speculations,
science and athiesm.
I do not understand. Are you saying that Christians are attached to science and atheism
via philosophy?
Top
8/14
14/10/2558

byDechenNorbuThuOct27,201112:28pm
Kyosan wrote:
I think that is the main thing. And if we do try to help others by speaking to
them, we need to meet them where they are at; what we say has to be
reasonable to them. It's about helping them use their wisdom to decide, not
about imposing our views on them.
Indeed. It's very important for someone to start his path in the right way, making contact in a
meaningful fashion. This varies a lot. For some, if their first contact are the most exotic parts
to our culture, it's unlikely they stick around to see the rest. However, this doesn't mean we
deem less important this or that teaching, or worse, we try to shape Dharma so that it suits
their mundane views. A good teacher will know his student and how to help him without
corrupting the teachings.
Could it be that the Dalai Lama is a New Ager? Naw, perish the thought. Sorry, I
couldn't resist.
I think this shows that the Dalai Lama doesn't believe that metaphysical beliefs
are important, since different religions have different metaphysics.
I think he is saying that thinking of the "good of the world" (having compassion
for all sentient beings) and thinking as individuals is more important than strict
adherence to religious doctrine. And he is saying that if we are fundamentalists
(are attached to the doctrine) that can impede us spiritually.
It shows none of that. The Dalai Lama stresses teachings as rebirth and karma as any other
good teacher. I have plenty of his books where this is blatantly clear. You can't pick a
sentence directed to the general public and make of it what it isn't to suit your purposes. The
Dalai Lama also says that there comes a point where one must choose.
That all religions may be important is a different matter all together. Each religion has its
value. You can be a good Christian and do a lot of good for others. You can be an atheist and
do the same. This doesn't imply that the Dalai Lama considers eternalism or nihilism
wholesome views. It means that even under such views, one can still do a lot for others and
himself. They just aren't fit if your aim is enlightenment.
Bending or warping the Dharma so it can be compatible with competing metaphysics does
nothing for its value. It impoverishes the teachings. People are not forced to become
Buddhists or to accept the teachings. I find dishonest and misleading if we twist the teachings
to attract someone. People have the right to know what they are dealing with. If they decide
to stick around and investigate, fantastic. If they don't, it's their right. What we don't have is
the right to corrupt the Buddhadharma so that it fits everyone. Some people will never
become Buddhists. They can have their convictions, some incompatible with Buddhism, and
9/14
14/10/2558
still be great human beings. If we lie to them by saying "oh this is not important, so you can
simply disregard it", forgetting that the Buddha or the sages usually don't spend time in idle
chatter, we are not being honest with them. These teachings are there and there are means
to check them. First we build some intellectual confidence through study and after that we
practice to gain insight directly. Doubt is not solved by cultivating it. It's by the cultivation of
study and practice that we deal with our legitimate doubts, not pretending that some
teachings don't matter. Were that the case, probably the Buddha wouldn't have mentioned
them.
Best wishes.
Top

bydeepbluehumThuOct27,20113:15pm
Acchantika wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
Your hatred of the Church is your issue. Other religions have many good
merits.
I apologise if I came off as sarcastic. I felt I was misintepreted when "waxing

poetic" so I tried a different approach. I don't hate other religions.
My point was that every religion expounds the same rhetoric that is being
repeated here, that once one is open to an idea they can verify it in their own
experience. I think that often people actually just intepret their experience
according to a prior belief, which is reinforcement, not verification.
Encouraging this means that people end up both adhering to concepts and
reifying meditative experience. These are both antithetical to practice,
whether you are a beginner or not. I don't think this is what Buddha meant by
testing the ideas, and this "testibility" is so crucial that I think it is a great
mistake to conflate it with the same dogmatic rhetoric in other systems. It
seems to me that he understood clearly that true verification is impossible, but
falsification isn't. This is very important, I believe. I think that intepreting
karma to be a mere Universal reward system is vastly underestimating its
meaning, and will turn us all into compassiobots.
But I appreciate your praying for me. I need all the help I can get.
I agree that testability would great, but their are limits to what one can gather in terms of
data. For example, there is no test that can falsify rebirth. The best we can hope for are two
things: 1) anecdotal evidence and 2) one must enter the path up to the fourth jhana and aver
one's mind toward past lives and see what happens. The second would only be one's own
10/14
14/10/2558
subjective experience. The same applies to karma. We can look at examples like Ghaddhafi
and apply the lives by the gun dies by the gun adage. Then, we can "test" in our own
experience whether what the Buddha said is true, that good deeds result in pleasant
condition and bad deeds result in painful condition. As to compassiobots, you are missing a
crucial element, the dharmakaya. This also has absolutely nothing to do with science, and
cannot be tested, because it is simply awareness's own subjective experience, and by
definition, is immeasurable. Make no mistake about it, we are as Buddhists trying to gain
immeasurable pleasure gained from the unshakable karma of meditative absorption. A bot
could never experience this, because there is no combination of zeros and ones that could
possibly account for this experience. As a strict skeptic you are in danger of remaining a
thoughtobot. You are not allowing yourself the license to relax, unwind and sink into the
deep vast pool of subjective pleasure that comes from realization of the dharmakaya.
Top

byedearlThuOct27,20114:39pm
Acchantika wrote:
Seriously, you Easterners need to drop the Iron Age aspirations or you will be
left in the dust. This is the end times. The Good News will not be here for long.
Baptist preacher William Miller predicted the Second Advent of Jesus Christ would occur
before March 21, 1844. When this date he chose a new date of April 18, 1844. That date
passed and a follower of Miller, Samuel S. Snow, predicted October 22, 1844.
Anabaptists of the early sixteenth century believed that the Millennium would occur in 1533.
Assemblies of God Church predicted Armageddon no later than 1934 or 1935.
Charismatic Pastor Chuck Smith predicted anytime before 1981.
Russian Mennonite minister Claas Epp, Jr. predicted that Christ would return on March 8,
1889, and, when that date passed uneventfully, 1891.
Thomas Brightman a Presbyterian predicted the end of the world between 1650 and 1695.
Christopher Love a strong Presbyterian predicted that Babylon would fall in 1758God's anger
against the wicked would be demonstrated in 1759there would be earthquakes all over the
world 1763.
There have been many more similar predictions.
The earth has been around a few billion years and I predict it will be here a few billion more.
Top
byJosefThuOct27,20114:49pm
11/14
Re: are karma and rebirth
for real? (#p63129)
14/10/2558
byJosefThuOct27,20114:49pm
Food_Eatah wrote:
This is a major problem in my opinion and I dont think its just a "Western" problem.
It is definitely most prevalent here though. This thread and all the other rebirth threads
show bountiful evidence of Westerners who want to call themselves Buddhists but want the
teachings to change so they can remain comfortable as they are. This kind of attitude is in
direct conflict with the purpose of the dharma and the teachings themselves.
The dharma is meant to change US the dharma is not for us to change and doing so is
completely unnecessary. The Buddhadharma has a pretty excellent track record of working.
Top

byAcchantikaThuOct27,20116:26pm
deepbluehum wrote:
I agree that testability would great, but their are limits to what one can gather
in terms of data. For example, there is no test that can falsify rebirth. The best
we can hope for are two things: 1) anecdotal evidence and 2) one must enter
the path up to the fourth jhana and aver one's mind toward past lives and see
what happens. The second would only be one's own subjective experience. The
same applies to karma. We can look at examples like Ghaddhafi and apply the
lives by the gun dies by the gun adage. Then, we can "test" in our own
experience whether what the Buddha said is true, that good deeds result in
pleasant condition and bad deeds result in painful condition. As to compassio
bots, you are missing a crucial element, the dharmakaya. This also has
absolutely nothing to do with science, and cannot be tested, because it is
simply awareness's own subjective experience, and by definition, is
immeasurable.
I feel this is really underestimating the power of Buddhist phenomenology. What might be
Buddhism's most appealing factor to the Western intellectual mindset is that its primary
system of inquiry is a very advanced form of phenomenology, so advanced that it overtakes
anything similar ever produced in the West by millenia. It is also independently verifiable in a
way that other beliefs are not a highly intelligent person stranded on an island with no
access to human knowledge may, in theory, arrive at the conventional meaning of dependent
origination, even karma and rebirth and so on, by logic alone. You can't really make this claim
of other systems. Truth, being absolute, must be able to be universally realised and derived,
assuming necessary mental capacity, or it can never be trusted as truth. I think the Buddha
realised and taught this who, we remember, didn't have any of the anecdotal evidence we
have now. Would he really try to encourage us solely by appealing to future experience? I
don't think he did.
12/14
14/10/2558
If we rely on anecdotal evidence, we are only reinforcing our previous beliefs that's why it
isn't accepted generally as scientific, even though its based in scientific thinking. If we
attribute truth value to claims of NDE's, or yogic recollection (even our own) it is only ever
because we assign the source credibility that we don't assign to other, competing anecdotes.
That credibility is based on other assumptions, which sooner or later are found to be
unfounded in any rigourous way. This is why it is a flimsy argument, the same every belief
system uses, and not necessary. Right view mean nothing without right understanding.
We cannot yet falsify rebirth completely, so it is disingenuous to call it an empirical
hypothesis. However, fortunately and possibly more importantly we can falsify nonrebirth
and nonkarma. That is, it is impossible, for example, for energy to do anything other than
continue. The conservation of energy is a "law" in physics. So literal noncausation and non
rebirth, at least of physical things, is impossible. We haven't quite proved the progression of a
mental continuum, of course, but this is much more powerful an argument than one that
appeals to anecdotal evidence, which science doesn't consider valid, and appeal to future
experience, which philosophy considers a fallacy.
It is bizarre to me that so many Buddhists are critical of "Western science". I have no idea
why. Everything we see in modern science is exactly what we would expect if the core tenets
of Buddhism are correct. Empiricism and materalism/"New Atheism"/physicalism etc. are not
mutally exclusive.
Sorry for the wall of text, needed a vent.
As a strict skeptic you are in danger of remaining a thoughtobot.
True, and this is the biggest problem for this approach, the risk of becoming an armchair
Buddhist. The best philosophers are scientists, meaning skepticism is the proper attitude for
experiment. But we should remember there is nothing to fear from skepticism or science,
either way. They are on our side. The good thing about truth is that its invincible. Hooray!
Top

byAcchantikaThuOct27,20116:34pm
Nangwa wrote:
Food_Eatah wrote:
This is a major problem in my opinion and I dont think its just a "Western"
problem.
It is definitely most prevalent here though. This thread and all the other rebirth
threads show bountiful evidence of Westerners who want to call themselves
Buddhists but want the teachings to change so they can remain comfortable as
13/14
14/10/2558
they are. This kind of attitude is in direct conflict with the purpose of the
dharma and the teachings themselves.
The dharma is meant to change US the dharma is not for us to change and doing
so is completely unnecessary. The Buddhadharma has a pretty excellent track
record of working.
Whatever doesn't change is subject to decay. Buddhism works because when it went to China
it became Chinese Buddhism, went to Tibet it became Tibetan Buddhism etc. None of this
means the essence is changing, just that the methods needed to adapt to different
proclivities. If the Buddhism of prescientific, feudal, shamanic societies is relevant to you,
that's fine, but that isn't necessarily true for all.
Top

byThug4lyfeThuOct27,20117:39pm
edearl wrote:
Food_Eatah wrote:
Attachment to Christianity, in turn gets attached to philsophical
speculations, science and athiesm.
I do not understand. Are you saying that Christians are attached to science
and atheism via philosophy?
I am saying alot of the mindset developed seems to be very attached to "antiChristian"

beliefs, hence more attached to athiesm and science which are deemed superior. With this
mind set many people would go as far to claim that Buddhism isn't even a religion because
they are attached to the idea that only systems like Christainity etc constitute a religion!
Top
PreviousNextDisplaypostsfromprevious: Allposts
Ascending
Go
Sortby Posttime
Postareply
773postsPage8of391...5,6,7,8,9,10,11...39
ReturntoOpenDharma
Jumpto: OpenDharma
Go
Who is online
Usersbrowsingthisforum:Lazy_eye,websat11and1guest
2015DavidN.Snyder,Ph.D.,VipassanaFoundationinassociationwithTheDhammaEncyclopedia
DharmaWheelisassociatedwithDhammaWheel.com,DhammaWiki.com,andTheDhamma.com..
Chatroom
>
14/14

Re: Are Karma and Rebirth For Real?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re: Are Karma and Rebirth For Real?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14/10/2558

Are Karma and Rebirth Real?

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63012)

Dechen Norbu wrote:

If death is annihilation, it really doesn't matter, because there will be no

Dechen Norbu wrote:

You say it.

concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63017)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63025)

Yes, but I use Firefox.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63026)

Yes, but I use Firefox.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63067)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63068)

Sarcasm. I pray you overcome that hate within.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63069)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63071)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63072)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63082)

from the Dalai Lama

from the Dalai Lama

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63093)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63095)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63099)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63105)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63115)

I apologise if I came off as sarcastic. I felt I was misintepreted when "waxing

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63128)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63129)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63149)

As a strict skeptic you are in danger of remaining a thoughtobot.

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63150)

Re: are karma and rebirth for real? (#p63161)

I am saying alot of the mindset developed seems to be very attached to "antiChristian"

You might also like